🐱 Trump administration 'taking a look' at regulating Google

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
CatParty
http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...nistration-taking-a-look-at-regulating-google


White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Tuesday said that the administration is “taking a look” at potentially regulating Google, following President Trump’s tweets criticizing the search giant.

Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning that Google search results for “Trump News” showed results for “only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media," he wrote, referencing prominent news outlet CNN.



“Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out,” Trump’s tweet read.
Kudlow's comments were in response to being pressed by reporters on if, in light of the president's comments, the administration is considering imposing regulations on Google.

In his tweets, Trump went on to accuse Google and other tech companies of being biased against conservatives, an increasingly common attack from Republicans.

“Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!” Trump tweeted.

Google shot back at the president's claims, refuting charges that it is biased against conservatives or any other political groups.

"When users type queries into the Google Search bar, our goal is to make sure they receive the most relevant answers in a matter of seconds," a Google spokesperson said in a statement.

"Search is not used to set a political agenda and we don't bias our results toward any political ideology," the statement continues. "Every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms to ensure they surface high-quality content in response to users' queries. We continually work to improve Google Search and we never rank search results to manipulate political sentiment."

Trump joins high-profile Republicans like House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in accusing technology companies of treating conservatives on their platforms unfairly.

With support from McCarthy, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is set to hold a hearing on the matter on Sept. 5, which Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is set to testify.

Dorsey will also testify during the Senate Intelligence Committee’s hearing that day on how foreign governments have run misinformation campaigns on American tech platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google Plus.
 
Can you honestly say that Trump would be proposing this if the results coming up were mostly ones he liked, that Google was biased against the left, and that wasn't fair? Color me skeptical.

It's not Google's fault he doesn't know how a search engine works. They already changed things slightly a while back to make it harder to do Google-Bombs, or people would really take advantage of this latest move. (Not that people aren't going to try)
 
Can you honestly say that Trump would be proposing this if the results coming up were mostly ones he liked, that Google was biased against the left, and that wasn't fair? Color me skeptical.

It's not Google's fault he doesn't know how a search engine works. They already changed things slightly a while back to make it harder to do Google-Bombs, or people would really take advantage of this latest move. (Not that people aren't going to try)

These are the companies that actually had the money to fight google. For any other organization, you have no chance. Even if you can prove it.
google.jpg
 
I never said Google was some benign, saintly organization. Of course they're out to make money -- that's just common sense.
But it has nothing to do with whether or not they're biased against Trump. Even if it were true, Trump's ego and habit of constant railing against any slight works against him. It's also not Google's job to prove they have no bias -- he made the claim, he needs to show proof.

You can't deny -- sometimes he's his own worst enemy when it comes to this kind of thing.
 
I don't think google (the search engine) is even reasonably a monopoly. There's solid competition in that field.

In regards to app stores, yeah, that's a choke point and google wields an uncomfortable amount of power there.

If it was just the ubiquitous search engine, this would never have come up. But when you have the ubiquitous search engine plus the ubiquitous video hosting platform plus half of the smartphone OS duopoly plus the leader in online ad revenue... just how big and ubiquitous does this conglomerate have to get before we admit that it's a problem?

With advertising, google does have a bunch of power (I'm not exactly sure how much though), but an interesting competition to google's advertising platform are just alternatives to traditional advertising in general. I'm talking about things like patreon, combined with aggressive ad blocking.

Ad blocking is interesting to me because it's kind of an obscure technical thing that many ordinary people have managed to adopt. Like, technically speaking, you can install apps on your android phone without going through the app store, but it's still a pain in the ass. 99.9% of phone users probably wouldn't bother.

But I think a huge chunk of internet users have managed to install an adblocking plugin in their browser.

I'm also a big fan of Brave, which attempts to combine a great ad blocker (and blocks various tracking software in general) with micropayments. You gas it up with $30/month or whatever you want, and it'll dole out micropayments to the various websites you visit. (You can exclude some websites if you want.)

I've been using Brave for years now. Love it. But while it is an alternative to things like Google Chrome, it's not a competitor to the Silicon Valley hegemons. Even then, it exists somewhat at their pleasure: recall the travails Gab has had trying to get it's mobile versions launched, and remember how AdNauseum- which legitimately fucks with people like Google- is aggressively patrolled against as "malware."

Metcalfe's law is really overused as an argument. It has a huge flaw in that it assumes a static target. There are almost no static targets on the internet.

It's not a perfect argument, I'll give you that, but I think it's a good enough argument- and "good enough" is really a key phrase here, especially when things like Facebook are concerned. If Facebook is good enough for the vast majority of social media users, then it's going to control a vast majority of the market share barring some unforseen technological development giving it a bullet in the head. This is especially true when you remember (as you noted above) that 99.9% of people aren't particularly technical and, as a result, the costs of converting to a new platform (rebuilding their friends lists, re-upping their content) will be quite high for them. The target doesn't have to be completely static, it just needs to be static enough, and the natural monopoly will fall into place.

But really, I think the proof is in the pudding. Gay frogs or no, Alex Jones does draw eyeballs, and eyeballs are what Google and Facebook are actually in the business of selling. In a healthy marketplace, Alex Jones getting banned by a single-digit number of companies (that aren't even technically in the exact same fields) wouldn't matter; he'd take his business to their competitors and life would go on. But there is no competitors to Google (the whole conglomeration, not just the search engine) or Facebook; comparing VK or Minds to the latter is like comparing a well in West Virginia to the NYC waterworks: yes, they're both technically potable water sources, but operating on such a vastly different scale that there's where the similarities end. The fact that enough companies to count on one hand can- and will- ghettoize you away from the vast majority of the internet if they decide they don't like you means they are exercising de facto monopoly power with no oversight from the marketplace or the law.

But it has nothing to do with whether or not they're biased against Trump. Even if it were true, Trump's ego and habit of constant railing against any slight works against him. It's also not Google's job to prove they have no bias -- he made the claim, he needs to show proof.

Google (like everyone else in Silicon Valley) will scream "trade secrets!" backed up by millions of dollars in lawyers if they catch even the tiniest whisper about transparency. Hell, they managed to get the records sealed in the friggin' Damore case, despite that being an HR punch-up that has nothing to do with their actual core business. Proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt about their algorithm, without access to the algo itself? Never gonna happen. The only people out there with a big enough crowbar to potentially reveal the truth about what's actually in there are the DOJ.

I know this has been covered already, but here's another article, just for completeness' sake, about Google manipulating their algo to get a desired outcome. They rig their search results. We know it, they've admitted it, so it's really their word against Trump's in this particular case, and I'm inclined to believe him on the grounds that he's not a complete black box. He may be doing this for the wrong reasons, but "right thing for the wrong reason" is better than you get from most politicians.
 
Hm and when being biased against a sitting president becomes a legal matter opening you to federal regulation, who in the media will decry it when the president is once again a Democrat?

If you are the company that owns the phone directory, are you going to give equal space on the page to all the companies? No, the biggest payers get the biggest ads. If companies and individuals pay the money, they get to steer the conversation. It's the way it's been going for the past 3 years. It just wasn't as noticeable before then, because when Obama was in, everything was hunky dory.

Money makes the world go round. It's got nothing to do with ideology. It's got to do with the President trying to do his job, and the corporations not happy that a President is trying to do that job. They'd love to get Barack "let's pay the banks a shitload of money for being a bunch of corrupt assholes that almost tanked the economy" Obama back.
 
It's the way it's been going for the past 3 years. It just wasn't as noticeable before then, because when Obama was in, everything was hunky dory.
Strong left wing media bias has been a right wing talking point (and rightly so) for many decades. If anything things have improved drastically in the last few years since you don't have a Walter Cronkite being king of the media with no alternatives.
 
Strong left wing media bias has been a right wing talking point (and rightly so) for many decades. If anything things have improved drastically in the last few years since you don't have a Walter Cronkite being king of the media with no alternatives.

This is true: the rise of the internet has really torn the mask off what the media always was. They've responded by doubling down on everything.
 
If it was just the ubiquitous search engine, this would never have come up. But when you have the ubiquitous search engine plus the ubiquitous video hosting platform plus half of the smartphone OS duopoly plus the leader in online ad revenue... just how big and ubiquitous does this conglomerate have to get before we admit that it's a problem?
I think the details behind each of those businesses are important enough that they need to be analyzed separately.

As I've said before, I have no problem with google search.

Video streaming is a current interest of mine. I'm not sure how difficult that one is. (It is difficult, but I don't know if we're talking intractible, or if there's some clever solution that could make things easier.)

Google controlling the android app store is worrying.

And in regards to ads, I think the answer should be to reduce the value of online advertising. Now an example of where I would feel that google is abusing its position, is if it suddenly made it substantially more difficult to install an adblocker in chrome. That would be a great example of google abusing its power in one market, to protect its business in another market.

You can't just say "big and powerful" and "owns a lot of different businesses". You have to connect those two things to unfair business practices. Where do the lines intersect?
It's not a perfect argument, I'll give you that, but I think it's a good enough argument- and "good enough" is really a key phrase here, especially when things like Facebook are concerned. If Facebook is good enough for the vast majority of social media users, then it's going to control a vast majority of the market share barring some unforseen technological development giving it a bullet in the head. This is especially true when you remember (as you noted above) that 99.9% of people aren't particularly technical and, as a result, the costs of converting to a new platform (rebuilding their friends lists, re-upping their content) will be quite high for them. The target doesn't have to be completely static, it just needs to be static enough, and the natural monopoly will fall into place.
You're still operating with too many assumptions. Thinking that facebook's model of social media (wall, friends lists, groups, etc) is going to last indefinitely is one of the static assumptions that I'm talking about.

I don't think that's at all likely. In fact, I think it's already showing its age.

Facebook themselves are aware of this. Their business strategy for awhile has been to try and pay away the public's internet boredom by buying up a lot of little companies with interesting ideas. Most of them will end up being flops, but they're hoping they hit upon the next big thing to keep people excited in facebook. Like how they were fucking around with VR.
In a healthy marketplace, Alex Jones getting banned by a single-digit number of companies (that aren't even technically in the exact same fields) wouldn't matter; he'd take his business to their competitors and life would go on.
In the pre-internet days, if MTV and VH1 stopped showing your music video, it's not like there's an easy alternative. No one was proposing regulating the music video TV channel space.

Video killed the radio star, but I think it'd be ridiculous to say that facebook will kill Alex Jones.

Also, I think you're expecting too much change too quickly. Change moves faster online than in the physical space, but it's not instantaneous.

When newspaper conglomerates started to get regulated, it took like 30 year cycles before someone bothered to do that. And even that was more justified in my eyes, because there's a physical component to newspapers. You have to print them off and distribute them.

And again, small teams of people can do huge things online. I wasn't kidding when I said a really good programmer might be 100x as productive as a shitty programmer.
The fact that enough companies to count on one hand can- and will- ghettoize you away from the vast majority of the internet if they decide they don't like you means they are exercising de facto monopoly power with no oversight from the marketplace or the law.
He's not ghettoized away from the majority of the internet. Because of net neutrality, anyone with a web browser can view his material.

That's not a minor detail or a technicality. That's how you start to move people away from facebook. Also, I just noticed that his site is actually pretty highly ranked.

Facebook is not an unstoppable juggernaut. It's more like a plodding beast of burden that's always slowing down.

(Oh, though all of this is from a US perspective. Facebook is probably doing better in other countries like India.)
 
For some reason I feel it's necessary to remind people that while the U.S. government has to abide by the constitution, corporations don't.

With that out of the way, while I don't like regulation fucking something has to be done, and will be whether anyone likes it or not because the current situation is already untenable, and it's only getting worse.
 
With that out of the way, while I don't like regulation fucking something has to be done, and will be whether anyone likes it or not because the current situation is already untenable, and it's only getting worse.
I actually think this will resolve itself of its own accord, incoming optimistic ratings or no. These companies are afraid. That's because change is about to be forced on them by the market.
 
You can't just say "big and powerful" and "owns a lot of different businesses". You have to connect those two things to unfair business practices. Where do the lines intersect?

They intersect at "one-party conspiracy to restrain trade." Restraint of trade is a violation of the Sherman act, and once an entity gets large enough to simply quash a competitor (like it or not, InfoWars is a media company) by refusal to deal, that is monopoly power by definition.

You're still operating with too many assumptions. Thinking that facebook's model of social media (wall, friends lists, groups, etc) is going to last indefinitely is one of the static assumptions that I'm talking about.

It's the dominant model now, so it's the reality that we have to deal with. I'm not a huge fan of regulation either, but it's a preferable alternative to sitting on our hands while the public square becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of GloboHomo Inc. because maybe, in the fullness of time, the free market might eventually provide a solution.

In the pre-internet days, if MTV and VH1 stopped showing your music video, it's not like there's an easy alternative. No one was proposing regulating the music video TV channel space.

Yes, but bands were managed by labels with a lot of hitting power and iron-clad contracts. It was a much more equitable dealing between parties, not this nebulous "the rules are whatever we say they are at any given time" there is when it comes to social media. I hate to keep harping on this, but enforcing common law contract rules in the digital sphere would solve 90% of these problems- it's just that the courts appear unwilling to do this, which is why I think escalation to antitrust is the best course plausibly available.

Video killed the radio star, but I think it'd be ridiculous to say that facebook will kill Alex Jones.

Facebook, by itself? Perhaps not. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Spotify? Quite likely. He benefited from the Streisand Effect at the initial banning, but where is new traffic going to come from? How are people who would never have found him do so in his quarantined state? Michael Tracey had the best summary of this, I think: "While it’s true that the word “purge” might not be completely correct in a literalistic sense, as Jones still has his own private website, it’s apt in a practical sense because the “social web” generates such a huge proportion of overall internet traffic today."

Also, I think you're expecting too much change too quickly. Change moves faster online than in the physical space, but it's not instantaneous.

I disagree; one of the things that makes this situation so exceptionally frustrating for me is that I'm not asking for change at all. I'm asking that the rules as written, as followed by everyone else, get enforced here. As I noted in the Star Citizen thread, is there any other industry where you can take people's money in return for a promise to provide a product, then simply change your promise after the fact while the other parties have absolutely no recourse? Loan sharks have trouble getting away with this because they have to maintain some degree of credibility, yet multibillion dollar tech firms do it constantly and nobody bats an eye.

When newspaper conglomerates started to get regulated, it took like 30 year cycles before someone bothered to do that. And even that was more justified in my eyes, because there's a physical component to newspapers. You have to print them off and distribute them.

I don't follow the reasoning here- things moved a lot slower back then, and big dot-coms have overhead as well. Server farms are extremely expensive to operate and maintain, and outsourcing creates more choke points that a competitor can cut off- again, see Gab getting effectively blackmailed into taking down individual posts by hosting providers.

And again, small teams of people can do huge things online. I wasn't kidding when I said a really good programmer might be 100x as productive as a shitty programmer.

You're not wrong; after all, ZUN has accomplished more, for less, than the entire Star Citizen team. But the problem comes on the business side: what's to stop Facebook or whomever from simply buying up any potential them-killers and either smothering or assimilating them? This is why it's dangerous to surrender so much market space to a single entity, even if they don't cross the monopoly threshold on the basis of some technicality.
 
I get what you're saying but all of those things involve existing rules and regulations. If they're not being enforced, why should any new ones be?

That's why I want the Trump administration to enforce them: hammer Google, Facebook, etc. for conspiracy to restrain trade per the Sherman act, force some actual consistency when it comes to the Communications Decency Act, etc, then (or in concert, it doesn't matter) start laying common carrier regulations on big dot-coms to foreclose on this sort of thing from happening again. Just the precedent itself is a huge deal: call it a hunch, but I think that judges are going to be a lot more interested in antitrust and conscinability claims coming from the DoJ as opposed to a "Super Male Vitality" salesman or some rando who blew $4500 on spaceship jpgs. Under US law, private parties can push antitrust cases, but one of the reasons they have so much trouble getting their foot in that door is that these companies can either pay them off or grind them down by endlessly tying up litigation. No matter how good your claim is, how do you fight corporations that can outspend you by a factor of a million?
 
Google controlling the android app store is worrying.
Hardly. Android Open Source Project can be compiled and shipped by anyone without without bundled Google Sevices. Amazon does this with their Fire tablets and plenty of chinkphones do too. The real barrier to entry is the lack of Google Services on two counts: Google services are desireable and in some cases necessary for some functionality (Google Play Sevices) and your device will not be whitelisted as "certified" to Google Play. Uncertified devices aren't at a major detriment in most cases, it's possible to sideload Google's apps and use the Google Play Store even if it's technically an EULA violation. However, they will not pass Google's server-side whitelist check called SafetyNet, which also checks for device modifications. Services like Netflix, Snapchat, Google Pay, and Pokemon Go all use this to protect themselves from ne'er-do-wells, but it also limits uncertified, but otherwise perfectly serviceable devices, from using them. To become certified (part of the process of being licensed to distribute Google Services) a device has to pass a Compatibility Test Suite to ensure platform compatibility with the Android app runtime. Significantly modified AOSP features or substandard hardware can preclude this.

Now, this is by no means the death knell for uncertified devices as Amazon's Fire tablets and smart TVs, with a fork of Anroid called Fire OS, do very well. There are also options in the form of 3rd party stores which can range from sketchy (Aptoide) to FOSS (F-droid) to currated apps (ApkMirror). Android also allows any app package (APK) to be sideload do. Google Play only ensures your device received some level of security because apps are being scrutinized. iOS does not have 3rd party options or easily accessible sideload methods, yet Apple never receives much criticism for this.

Is lack of Goole Play Services on an Android device a major detriment to most released with a North American or European target consumer? Absolutely, and Google knows this and uses it to throw weight around with their CTS. But it's by no means the only option even for devices that ship with them.

Sorry to lecture, but I want to inform that there are options while pointing out Google is being a dick but for different reasons than it may appear

EDIT: I should also add that compared to iOS and Apple's App Store, Google is extremely lax to the point that malware gets in occaisionally. Apple will reject your app for reasons ranging from as simple as it looks like dogshit to as restrictive as it does something they don't want.
 
Last edited:
It's the dominant model now, so it's the reality that we have to deal with. I'm not a huge fan of regulation either, but it's a preferable alternative to sitting on our hands while the public square becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of GloboHomo Inc. because maybe, in the fullness of time, the free market might eventually provide a solution.
Raw number of users is a pretty shallow metric. The value of individual eyeballs (one eyed people being worth half as much) is much higher on different platforms, depending on what you're trying to do with them.

Medium has much richer political content and its readers know this. Instagram has the biggest collection of dumb young adult girls, I guess. Twitter hits above its weight class in a few areas.

With a limited advertising budget, facebook would not be my top choice unless I had the most generic product imaginable.

Actually, speaking of advertising, I find twitter's ads to be very on-point. They're based on who I follow, so I've found many targeted tweets advertising products I'd actually consider paying for. It's like the only place where an advert actually rang true for me.
Facebook, by itself? Perhaps not. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Spotify? Quite likely. He benefited from the Streisand Effect at the initial banning, but where is new traffic going to come from? How are people who would never have found him do so in his quarantined state? Michael Tracey had the best summary of this, I think: "While it’s true that the word “purge” might not be completely correct in a literalistic sense, as Jones still has his own private website, it’s apt in a practical sense because the “social web” generates such a huge proportion of overall internet traffic today."
I'd be curious to hear how much Alex Jones himself advertised on facebook. Also, are people sharing Alex Jones memes on facebook? Are those getting banned too?

I'd wonder how deep this ban goes. How aggressive will it be enforced?
I don't follow the reasoning here- things moved a lot slower back then, and big dot-coms have overhead as well. Server farms are extremely expensive to operate and maintain, and outsourcing creates more choke points that a competitor can cut off- again, see Gab getting effectively blackmailed into taking down individual posts by hosting providers.
The choke point issue is unpleasant, but Gab could've prevented that. The proper way to do it would be to have two hosting providers alongside cloudflare protection. You do most of your computing on your primary hosting provider, then you proxy to it with your secondary provider. The secondary provider shouldn't cost very much because it will only be running a very light proxy. Data in / data out.

Then you use cloudflare to obscure the secondary provider. No one could know that the primary provider exists and people will only know the name of the secondary provider if you really fuck up and somehow fuck up configuring cloudflare. The secondary provider is only there as insurance.

(BTW, cloudflare is great. They protect so many sites that they're effectively unboycottable. They have a very strong free speech policy that basically amounts to passing the buck and letting the client handle their legals themselves.)

I hate that that kind of setup is necessary, and I do think something should be done to keep it from being necessary.

Servers operated in this way are not that expensive to operate. Like for any fledgling internet business, the biggest cost for a long time will be salaries. Even with a decently sized site, at most your servers will match the rent of one of your developers. By the time the cost of your servers becomes an issue, you really need to have a working business plan.

One of kf's past hosts, RamNode, almost weathered Vordrak. The owner was ready to tell vordy to fuck off, but because he lives in Canada (a commonwealth country), vordrak started threatening to sue him. His servers weren't even in Canada, they were in Las Vegas.

Kf got bounced from host to host several times and it sucked dick. Null's started his own VPS business. It's what enabled him to start seeing cloudflare complaints again, because he's now his own ISP essentially.

For these very reasons, I do support more restrictions (or perhaps enforcing the ones we already have) on providers of infrastructure. I think that because infrastructure, as well as financial services, is much harder to establish than software, there should be some regulations. Infrastructure is the real public sidewalk to me.

In fact, there's the CDA section 230. The government should start wrecking hosting services that choose to pry into what their hosts do.

But I think facebook should be permitted to be more picky though because they've got an image to protect. Gab is known as a haven for shrieking racists specifically because of their policies. And there's the example of EDF vs kiwifarms.

Facebook has a reputation and was designed by people. A server is a metal box that sits in an air conditioned room.

Oh, and don't get me started on financial services. Banks sold their soul to the devil long ago with the FDIC. They have no right to be picky about who they serve.
You're not wrong; after all, ZUN has accomplished more, for less, than the entire Star Citizen team. But the problem comes on the business side: what's to stop Facebook or whomever from simply buying up any potential them-killers and either smothering or assimilating them?
That could become an issue at some point.
 
I actually think this will resolve itself of its own accord, incoming optimistic ratings or no. These companies are afraid. That's because change is about to be forced on them by the market.

Oh I agree that this will resolve itself alright, though I doubt it's going to be "the market" seeing as they already own it. It's going to be at the hands of the government, because at this point there's no other recourse that doesn't involve violence.
 
Damn, maybe Trump really does need to look at Google.

(Bloomberg) -- For the past year, select Google advertisers have had access to a potent new tool to track whether the ads they ran online led to a sale at a physical store in the U.S. That insight came thanks in part to a stockpile of Mastercard transactions that Google paid for.

But most of the two billion Mastercard holders aren’t aware of this behind-the-scenes tracking. That’s because the companies never told the public about the arrangement.

Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Mastercard Inc. brokered a business partnership during about four years of negotiations, according to four people with knowledge of the deal, three of whom worked on it directly. The alliance gave Google an unprecedented asset for measuring retail spending, part of the search giant’s strategy to fortify its primary business against onslaughts from Amazon.com Inc. and others.

But the deal, which has not been previously reported, could raise broader privacy concerns about how much consumer data technology companies like Google quietly absorb.

"People don’t expect what they buy physically in a store to be linked to what they are buying online,” said Christine Bannan, counsel with the advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). "There’s just far too much burden that companies place on consumers and not enough responsibility being taken by companies to inform users what they’re doing and what rights they have.”

Google paid Mastercard millions of dollars for the data, according to two people who worked on the deal, and the companies discussed sharing a portion of the ad revenue, according to one of the people. The people asked not to be identified discussing private matters. A spokeswoman for Google said there is no revenue sharing agreement with its partners.

A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on the partnership with Mastercard, but addressed the ads tool. "Before we launched this beta product last year, we built a new, double-blind encryption technology that prevents both Google and our partners from viewing our respective users’ personally identifiable information,” the company said in a statement. “We do not have access to any personal information from our partners’ credit and debit cards, nor do we share any personal information with our partners.” The company said people can opt out of ad tracking using Google’s “Web and App Activity” online console. Inside Google, multiple people raised objections that the service did not have a more obvious way for cardholders to opt out of the tracking, one of the people said.

560x-1.jpg

Seth Eisen, a Mastercard spokesman, also declined to comment specifically on Google. But he said Mastercard shares transaction trends with merchants and their service providers to help them measure "the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns.” The information, which includes sales volumes and average size of the purchase, is shared only with permission of the merchants, Eisen added. "No individual transaction or personal data is provided," he said in a statement. "We do not provide insights that track, serve up ads to, or even measure ad effectiveness relating to, individual consumers."

Last year, when Google announcedthe service, called "Store Sales Measurement," the company just said it had access to "approximately 70 percent" of U.S. credit and debit cards through partners, without naming them.

That 70 percent could mean that the company has deals with other credit card companies, totaling 70 percent of the people who use credit and debit cards. Or it could mean that the company has deals with companies that include all card users, and 70 percent of those are logged into Google accounts like Gmail when they click on a Google search ad.

Google has approached other payment companies about the program, according to two people familiar with the conversations, but it is not clear if they finalized similar deals. The people asked to not be identified because they were not authorized to speak about the matter. Google confirmed that the service only applies to people who are logged in to one of its accounts and have not opted out of ad tracking. Purchases made on Mastercard-branded cards accounted for around a quarter of U.S. volumes last year, according to the Nilson Report, a financial research firm.

Through this test program, Google can anonymously match these existing user profiles to purchases made in physical stores. The result is powerful: Google knows that people clicked on ads and can now tell advertisers that this activity led to actual store sales.

Google is testing the data service with a “small group” of advertisers in the U.S., according to a spokeswoman. With it, marketers see aggregate sales figures and estimates of how many they can attribute to Google ads -- but they don’t see a shoppers’ personal information, how much they spend or what exactly they buy. The tests are only available for retailers, not the companies that make the items sold inside stores,the spokeswoman said. The service only applies to its search and shopping ads, she said.

For Google, the Mastercard deal fits into a broad effort to net more retail spending. Advertisers spend lavishly on Google to glean valuable insight into the link between digital ads a website visit or an online purchase. It's harder to tell how ads influence offline behavior. That’s a particular frustration for companies marketing items like apparel or home goods, which people will often research online but walk into actual stores to buy.

That gap created a demand for Google to find ways for its biggest customers to gauge offline sales, and then connect them to the promotions they run on Google. "Google needs to tie that activity back to a click," said Joseph McConellogue, head of online retail for the ad agency Reprise Digital. "Most advertisers are champing at the bit for this kind of integration."

Initially, Google devised its own solution, a mobile payments service first called Google Wallet. Part of the original goal was to tie clicks on ads to purchases in physical stores, according to someone who worked on the product. But adoption never took off, so Google began looking for allies. A spokeswoman said its payments service was never used for ads measurement.

Since 2014, Google has flagged for advertisers when someone who clicked an ad visits a physical store, using the Location History feature in Google Maps. Still, the advertiser didn’t know if the shopper made a purchase. So Google added more. A tool, introduced the following year, let advertisers upload email addresses of customers they’ve collected into Google’s ad-buying system, which then encrypted them. Additionally, Google layered on inputs from third-party data brokers, such as Experian Plc and Acxiom Corp., which draw in demographic and financial information for marketers.

But those tactics didn’t always translate to more ad spending. Retail outlets weren’t able to connect the emails easily to their ads. And the information they received from data brokers about sales was imprecise or too late. Marketing executives didn’t adopt these location tools en masse, said Christina Malcolm, director at the digital ad agency iProspect. "It didn’t give them what they needed to go back to their bosses and tell them, 'We’re hitting our numbers,’" she said.

Then Google brought in card data. In May 2017, the company introduced "Store Sales Measurement." It had two components. The first lets companies with personal information on consumers, like encrypted email addresses, upload those into Google’s system and synchronize ad buys with offline sales. The second injects card data.

It works like this: a person searches for "red lipstick" on Google, clicks on an ad, surfs the web but doesn’t buy anything. Later, she walks into a store and buys red lipstick with her Mastercard. The advertiser who ran the ad is fed a report from Google, listing the sale along with other transactions in a column that reads "Offline Revenue" -- only if the web surfer is logged into a Google account online and made the purchase within 30 days of clicking the ad. The advertisers are given a bulk report with the percentage of shoppers who clicked or viewed an ad then made a relevant purchase. Mastercard's spokesman said the company does not view data on the individual items purchased inside stores.

It’s not an exact match, but it’s the most powerful tool Google, the world’s largest ad seller, has offered for shopping in the real world. Marketers once had a patchwork of consumer data in their hands to triangulate who saw their ads and who was prompted to spend. Now they had far more clarity.

Google’s ad chief, Sridhar Ramaswamy, introduced the product in a blog post, writing that advertisers using it would have "no time-consuming setup or costly integrations." Missing from the blog post was the arrangement with Mastercard.

Early signs indicate that the deal has been a boon for Google. The new feature also plugs transaction data into advertiser systems as soon as they occur, fixing the lag that existed previously and letting Google slot in better-performing ads. Malcolm said her agency has tested the card measurement tool with a major advertiser, which she declined to name. Beforehand, the company received $5.70 in revenue for every dollar spent on marketing in the ad campaign with Google, according to an iProspect analysis. With the new transaction feature, the return nearly doubled to $10.60.

"That’s really powerful," Malcolm said. "And it was a really good way to invest more in Google, frankly."

But some privacy critics derided the tool as opaque. EPIC submitted a complaint about the sales measuring tack to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission last year. A report in August that Facebook Inc. was talking with banks about accessing information for consumer service products sparked similar criticism. For years, Facebook and Google have worked to link their massive troves of user behavior with consumer financial data.

And financial companies have plotted ways to tap into the bounty of digital advertising. The Google tie-up isn’t Mastercard’s only stab at minting the data it collects from customers. The company has built out its data and analytics capabilities in recent years through its consulting arm, Mastercard Advisors, and gives advertisers and merchants the ability to forecast consumer behavior based on cardholder data.

Ad buyers that work with Google insist that the company is careful to maintain the walls between transaction information and web behavior, keeping any info flowing to retailers and marketers anonymous. "Google is really strict about that," said Malcolm.

Before launching the product, Google developed a novel encryption method, according to Jules Polonetsky, head of the Future Privacy Forum, who was briefed by Google on the product. He explained that the system ensures that neither Google nor its payments partners have access to the data that each collect. “They’re sharing data that has been so transformed that, if put in the public, no party could do anything with it,” Polonetsky said. “It doesn’t create a privacy risk.”

Future Privacy Forum, a nonprofit, receives funding from 160 companies including Google.

Google’s ad business, which hit $95.4 billion in 2017 sales, has maintained an astounding growth rate of about 20 percent a year. But investors have worried how long that can last. Many major advertisers are starting to funnel more spending to rival Amazon, the company that hosts far more, and more granular, data on online shopping.

In response, Google has continued to push deeper into offline measurements. The company, like Facebook and Twitter Inc., has explored the use of "beacons," Bluetooth devices that track when shoppers enter stores.

Some ad agencies have actively talked to Google about even more ways to better size up offline behaviors. They have discussed adding features into the ads system such as what time of day people buy items and how much they spend, said John Malysiak, who runs search marketing for the Omnicom agency OMD USA. "We’re trying to go deeper with Google," he said. "We’d like to understand more." Google declined to comment on the discussions.

©2018 Bloomberg L.P.

TLDR : Bloomberg is reporting that Google secretly paid Mastercard millions of dollars for their cardholders' shopping data.
 
Back