September 9, 2024 • 45 mins
In this episode, Ed Zitron is joined by Jason Kint, CEO of DCN, to set the scene for Better Offline's coverage of the Department of Justice's second antitrust case against Google, one that alleges that "through Serial Acquisitions and Anticompetitive Auction Manipulation, Google Subverted Competition in Internet Advertising Technologies." This is the first in our ongoing coverage of the trial, which Jason will be attending in-person in Washington DC. For more information, visit https://usvgoogleads.com/ and follow Jason at https://x.com/jason_kint
Newsletter: wheresyoured.at
Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/betteroffline
Discord chat.wheresyoured.at
Ed's Socials -
http://www.twitter.com/edzitron
instagram.com/edzitron
https://bsky.app/profile/zitron.bsky.social
https://www.threads.net/@edzitron
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Also media.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I'm your host edzit Charn. Yes,
and today I'm joined by Jason Kent, the CEO of
the Trade Association DC. And Jason, thank you for joining me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Pleased to be here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
So Jason is joining us today and we'll be joining
us more regularly to talk through the massive antitrust trial
going on with Google, the second of them. Jason, why
don't you set the scene of what's going on?
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Yeah? Sure, thanks Ed. Yeah, we just wrapped up getting
the opinion on the first trial, which was the search trial,
where Judge Meta decided an issued an opinion that Google
has a monopoly in search and a monopoly and search
text ads. So this is trial number two. It's going
to be starting on Monday the ninth in the Eastern
(01:03):
District of Virginia. And this one is focused on the
ad tech part of Google's business and everything related to it.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
So how does that How is that different because a
lot of people see them kind of as one homogeneous entity.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Sure, yeah, I mean the advertising for people to understand,
the advertising business for digital has now become almost entirely
a live kind of auction marketplace. Where if you think
of all these ad units across the web, they are
being bought and sold in near real time to the
highest bidder. And Google as a company has both the
(01:38):
software and a lot of the data that powers the
decision making. And so if you think about kind of
on the buy side, a bunch of companies bidding on
advertising units that they want to own to get in
front of consumers, and on the other end, you've got
the owners of those units, whether it be publishers or
Google itself. Google is the largest player on both sides
(02:00):
of those transactions, and they also run most of the
auctions too.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
So what is happening in this trial?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
So the Department of Justice started investing in Google back
in twenty eighteen, and they spent a few years doing it.
The state attorneys General, led by Texas filed a lawsuit
back at the end of twenty twenty saying that Google's
ad tech business violating I trust laws, and since then,
(02:29):
the Department of Justice filed its own lawsuit back in
January of twenty twenty three, so just eighteen months ago.
And they did it in Virginia, where it's kind of
known as the nickname is the Rocket docket because it
moves so fast, and so in less than eighteen months,
this one's gone. It's gotten to the point where now
we're about to have a trial starting on Monday, and
(02:52):
they'll present their arguments to take about four weeks, and
the look the judge there, the district judge, will determine
an issue, our opinion on whether or not the various
charges that are in the complaint she agrees with them,
and and whether or not they'll be remedies for it.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
And what are the judges roughly speaking.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
The judge judge, what are the charges? Yes, that Google
has a monopoly and I believe three different areas of
the advertising supply chain. And so that's the software that
publishers use, that's the software that runs the auctions, and
that's the software on the buy side that's being used
(03:36):
to bid on the on the ads. And in those
areas that they've also abused that monopoly power.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
How have they been abusing it? Let's get into it,
get into it. Well, you know, let's let's see how
they're abusing I.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Think, I mean, I think one thing that's helpful and
and you know, fortunately and maybe unfortunately for Google, their
own employees and some of the discovery for the lawsuits
did a comparison to the stock market. When you think
about this kind of live marketplace, anybody that's all flashboys
and or read the book on high speed trading, this
(04:11):
is is that plus maybe even more intense.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And say a little bit about what that means for
those who might know.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Of sure, that means that if you think about these
advertising units that sit there across the web, that there
is incredibly high speed trading of those units that are
happening in milliseconds, meaning that you know, in a blink
of the eye, there are parties that are both bidding
on and then delivering on ad units based on a
(04:39):
whole range of targeting requirements and pricing, and then there's
rules around those auctions. And so if you think about
kind of the way a stock market works, which is
also happens and in real time, people are buying and
selling stock using machine, entirely using machines that have been
programmed to handle the bidding and the marketplace. Google is
(05:04):
doing that for the entire supply chain, both the buy
side and the cell side. And so you know, the
comparison that the Google employee made and also the Assistant
Attorney General did when they announced the lawsuit was to
the stock market as if Google, you know, was both buying,
was leading and on a majority of the software, both
for buying and for selling and for running the actual
(05:27):
auctions themselves.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
And so what's happened so far? You've been so you're
quite close that you're about twenty minutes in the courthouse Rougher.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Maybe about twenty minutes. Like what else? There's been a
number of pre what they call pre trial motions for
a variety of things to kind of figure out the
rules of the road for the trial when it starts Monday.
Some of that's just logistics. Some of that's really important
in terms of like what evidence will be allowed and
not allowed, who will testify and not testify, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
So what have you actually witnessed so far, like what
you've been in a few of these pre trial motions?
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Even yeah, I mean, well that's one thing. I just
start with the judge because this actually a little bit
in the weeds here. But this lawsuit originally start out
it was going to go before a jury of Americans
to make the decision. So you think about the just
Department having to explain this topic to the average American
(06:22):
that that changed a few months ago based on a
legal maneuver that Google did. And so now the judge
is going to be actually the one that will issue
the verdict and make the decision. And you know, my
observation is she is incredibly experienced. She's been a judge
for quite some time, and she's had some you know,
very very significant cases over her career, you know, involving
(06:47):
from al Qaeda terrorists on down to to you know,
nine to eleven related cases. So she's not intimidated at
all by anybody in the room, including Google for sure,
and so in that regard, you know, I'm very optimimistic.
She seems to only care about the law and justice,
(07:08):
which is what you want to see from a judge.
You know, Google, like with the Search trial, has the
best and the brightest attorneys that are out there. You know,
three or four firms working for them, and they've got
half the room full of their people. This is really
really important to them. The Just Department wants to break
up I mean, the outcome they want is they want
to break up Google, and so that's what this trial
(07:29):
is all about.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
How do you think how do you see that chances?
Speaker 1 (07:34):
You know, if you asked me, and I'm sure I
was on the record about this back a year ago,
I would have said that the chances for this one
were higher than the search the search lawsuit that they
just won. And so I also felt pretty optimistic about
the search lawsuits once they finished closing arguments, because I
thought they did a really good job explaining their case.
(07:54):
This one, I think it's even more obvious going in,
I mean to put in real numbers around. I mean,
they they the just Department's analysis and their experts analysis
is that Google has over ninety percent of the software
that publishers use to serve the ads, and then they've
got over they've got ninety eight percent of the mobile queries.
(08:18):
We learned that from the last decision. And so on
the buy side, they've got you know, almost you know,
ninety eight percent of the advertising demand that's coming through
from search ads. So like on both sides of the market,
they've you know, and then they get to write the rules.
So it's a problem.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
And as far as the original allegations go, can you
kind of break those down at all and explain what
the what the specific things that you would consider the
most important parts of this trial.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Yeah, sure, you know that one that they took the
market power that they had on the advertising demand side,
and that they used that in order to create market
power dominance, if you will, in other parts of the
(09:09):
supply chain. And so one that I think is really
important is that we now have a decision from the
other court on that dominance on the demand side. And
so you know, JUDGMENTA already did the work of saying,
you know, he believes that Google. You know, they proved
the case just part of the case that Google has
(09:29):
a monopoly in search and in search text ads and
that they abuse that. And so that decision is no
longer just allegations as it relates to Google, and this
case claims that they use that market power to to
create dominance elsewhere. And so they walk in I think
in a much better place based on the prior opinion
(09:51):
that came out in August. You know, second thing I'll
hit on is that they tied you know that to
other parts of the business. So the exchange in the
in the ad server business in order to so basically
to force people to use the other products. So as
an example, you know, the argument or the allegation is.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
That you weren't able to get access to any of
that demand unless you use Google's addex product, right, And
so you know, the evidence looks pretty clear on that,
but they're gonna have to present that case, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
I think a third area that hit on is that
that the market itself is properly defined. That's always important
for NIT trust trials in cases. And so this case
is all about something called open web display advertising, and
Google will try to to blur that line, but I
think that's also what's is.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Open web display advertizing?
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Well, I guess it's easier to explain the way it's not.
And that's what that's what bothers Google is. You know,
it's not closed platforms. So it's not advertising on TikTok
or not advertising on Facebook. It's advertise that's available over
the web browser in which companies can participate in auctions
on the buy side or they can participate auctions on
(11:11):
the cell side. And you know, and those are auctions
that are happening for display advertising units on websites.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
So it's a good time to actually take a step
back and ask how does Google make money from advertising?
What are their advertising units? Because you've mentioned there's the
bidding process. But where do we see Google advertising?
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Well, they, you know, a majority of the advertising, and
it's become more and more over each year, is actually
on Google's own properties, so entertained out that's where they
make the most money because they don't have to share
it with anybody else, right, And so so you've got
the ads on Search, you've got the ads on Gmail,
you've got the ads on YouTube. So it's on what
they call their owned and operated properties. And then also
(11:55):
Google serves ads across the rest of the web, and
that's where they get a lot of scale and a
lot of data. And then they take a percentage of
the action on the byside, percentage of the action cell side,
percentage of the action and the auctions, and that all
adds up so that they're taking you know, allegedly thirty
to thirty two percent of the revenue or just the
(12:19):
technology that's being used in order to serve those ads.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Does the suit suggest does it give any idea of
what the balance so that you said that most of
their advertising goes through their own properties, does it balance
that out? It's all? Does it explain?
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Yeah, I think it's it's in there, and it's certainly
in their sec filings. You know, I think you know,
this gets to kind of one of the arguments I
think you'll hear Google make, and that certainly their their
proxies and kind of their advocates are making, is that
the part of their revenue that serves on other people's
properties on publisher sites is only about fifteen you know,
(12:58):
it's say fifteen percent or so of the revenue, and
it's declining the last couple of years, so it's not growing,
it's flat to declining. It's not that material.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
That's the off property revenue.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
That's off property revenue.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
That's very bad for them.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
But the common sense piece, well, yeah, but that's where
they also have the lower margin because they don't have
they have to share it with people. The common sense
piece is that, well, one, if that wasn't that important
to them, then they'd be offloading it, right because why
would you want to go get suited by the United
States j JUSTAHS Department and potentially broken up if it's
(13:34):
not that important to you. And then two that ignores
that's just the revenue piece. But I think it's important
to understand it that like and this will come out.
I think in a lot of the documents that the
data that they get from those auctions and from serving
ads across the web and from tracking users across the web.
(13:54):
I mean, there's this important moment in time that will
come up in the trial. I believe we're in twenty sixteen.
Google merged all of the ad tech data they have,
with all the search data they have, with all the
location data they have, with all the Android data, and
all the Chrome browsing data into one single profile, which
they promised they wouldn't do, and they went ahead and
did it. And if you think about the value of
(14:17):
that data that underpins it, that's really important.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
So when you say unites those profiles, is they have
a profile on you and me? Is it? Do we
just not know?
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I mean we expect that they know whether it's a
synonymous indicator or a placeholder for that user, But they
know enough that it's this device which is attached to
a person, and I know all this other information about it.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yeah, this person may resemble that because I see in
twenty sixteen they dumped a ban on PII personally identify
them information. But is this separate to that? Is it
the combination of everything else.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
That I mean, that's what the reporting was in twenty sixteen,
and that's what the evidence that's starting to bubble up was.
Was this they call it Project Narnia is what we
just learned it. But that they merged, they dropped their
ban on PII being merged with search. Juliet Anglin from
public and I think did the report and and so
(15:20):
that you know, that was removing the guardrails basically, and
at least in my mind, and I think that will
be a part of the evidence.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
So within this, is there anything particularly surprising within the
first few Well, actually, let me take that back. I'm
sure there's surprising stuff, But what happens now? So we're
pushing this episode out on September ninth, the day of
the first trial. So what happens then and what happens
after that?
Speaker 1 (15:54):
Yeah, So the first couple of weeks, the just Department
will present what they call their case in chief. It's there,
you know, their evidence. So they're going to have a
slew of witnesses that have already been identified, both Google employees,
ex Google employees, you know, CEOs and top founders of
a lot of the competitive at tech companies, experts, et
(16:16):
cetera that you know probably have already been deposed and
will will now answer questions on the witness stand, and
they'll have a ton of exhibits that you know, we've
probably seen less than five percent of them, i'd say
at this point to prove their case, and Google have
a chance to ask questions too throughout, and then they'll
present their defense. I expect you'll take about four weeks total.
(16:40):
I think important things for people to know going into
the trial. You know I already covered that. I think
the judges is perfect for a case like this, so
that's very optimistic at this point. Also, I would say
it's very important to know that there was an important,
important hearing last week in which it's happened with multiple
(17:01):
lawsuits against Google, where Google guid in trouble for not
preserving documents. I was going to say, yeah, yeah, and
so Google at a point a number of years ago
issued a memo from their chief league officer and change
their systems so that any chat messages would by default
(17:24):
delete after twenty four hours, is the way it's been alleged,
and unless the employee actually proactively turned on their history
and turned off that purging because they run her a
litigation hole. Then the evidence was lost, and so the judge,
the judge very much expressed her concern about this had
(17:46):
happened and that probably a lot of evidence had been
deleted and that throughout the trials she's going to have
to take that into account whenever Google sends somebody up
to this with a stand that she's going to have
to have her own informtays and whether or not this
is a reliable testimony and whether or not there's you know,
information and exhibits that were not available to her because
(18:07):
of this policy. That's like really bad for Google going
into a trial, you know, like there already well, I
think that you know, ultimately she could decide to infer
that what they call a verse inferences, She could basically
decide that that there has been evidence that's been purged
in her mind, and therefore therefore Google was trying to
(18:31):
hide stuff that would have been incriminating to them or
prove the case of this department.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
So doesn't that weaken the case potentially on like appeal
if she does that a lot, or would it be
very carefully used?
Speaker 1 (18:42):
It would probably be carefully used. I think, you know,
anderstanding off. Judge Meta had the same concern and decision
you know, coming out of the search opinion, but he
said that he didn't need it, you know, he didn't
actually need to rely on it, that he was going
to find against Google, that it would monopoly and abused
its power without it, So he didn't need to have
(19:04):
that intent. She says, the intent is really important a
case like this, So we'll see how she how heavily
she weighs on it.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
At the end of the day. So on the ninth,
they are going the Homement of Justice will make their
first will begin making that case.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
They will, they will. Yep.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
So has anything interesting come out yet as far as
the initial motion and have we seen any e any
of the exhibits provided in ad once.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Sure, Yeah, we've seen, I mean even their initial the
original complaint. We've seen and through reporting we've seen some
of the the evidence in details on a lot of
projects that Google had. This one's a lot of there's
a lot of code name projects which will make it
hard to keep up to, but keep up with. But
there's things like you know, Perot and Bernanki and all
(19:52):
these like fancy names Belle and they each have a
little clever story behind them. Jedi Jedi Blue.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
And behind those fancy names are typically experiments, they would
call it. Where Google is testing making changes to its
auctions in order to drive some sort of outcome, whether
it be more revenue for Google, whether it be more
market power or more business for Google, you know, driving
more revenue to the publishers or the advertisers. Like it's
(20:19):
them playing with the auctions.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
And so we've seen some of the details of those.
I think what we're going to see now is some
of the intent behind them and some of the communications
internally about them.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I'd be interested. So Jedi Blue, that was the collusion
with Facebook.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Right, that was the alleged collusion with Facebook. It's very
much still around.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Well I thought that that got kind of dismissed in Europe.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Yeah, so Google has made that communication argument through some
of their proxies. It actually was dismissed in the the state.
AGS had their own case I mentioned was filed at
the end of twenty twenty in the Eastern District, Texas,
which was then moved to New York Southern just New York,
and while it was there that was dismissed from the case.
(21:07):
I won't go into why or when that was accurate,
but it was that specific charge which had potential criminal
criminal implications for them was dismissed. That the complaint then
and the lawsuit then moved back to Texas for a
(21:28):
different reason, and that discovery was reopened up about four
months ago, i'd say, on Facebook. And it also led
to a deposition of Sudar Pakai, the CEO of Google,
because he has unique knowledge about that deal.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
It also led and what was the deal.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
The deal as alleged was that Google Jedi. Project Jedi was,
as we understand, it was Google's attempt to match or
have their version of what's called header bitting, which was
this coding layer at the top of a web page
that opened up auctions so that other parties could compete
(22:09):
and participate in auctions, live auctions. And it was a
threat to Google's business because it meant that a publisher
could could participate put on their header of their web
page this code which would allow them to open up
their auctions to outside parties, so it didn't have to
go through Google Jedi Blue. So if you think about
(22:31):
that as a threat to Google, Jedi Blue was a
way to keep to do a deal with Facebook, as alleged,
so that Facebook would not support header bitting, that Facebook
would instead not participate in header evading, which would be
bad for header bitting, and would instead, you know, exchange
value with Google. And that value, as I understood it
from the complaints was and the reporting was that Facebook
(22:54):
would get additional matching of users and the auctions that
Google ran, and they would get speed preferences in the auction.
So if you think about the timing of bids.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
But auctions within Google's ad.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
Product, within Google system. Yeah, so that is.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
An obvious that's an obvious use of monopoly power that
one feels. How has that being I'm shocked that that
hasn't caused more problems for them.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Well, and where it got the Smiths it was it
was narrowly read by the judge as normal. You know,
these are two companies that are competing with each other
still at the end of the day, and and they
were both getting a value exchange that that made sense
for them, and Facebook was acting the best interest of
its business. You know, it was a questionable ruling, but
(23:43):
what's important to understand is that still it is part
of the conduct for the just Department case starting next week.
It's a part of the conduct for the State a
g case and Sinndarbakai has now been deposed about it
in the last two months, and the attorneys all flew
over the night Kingdom to depose Facebook's project manager on it,
(24:05):
who also believed Mark Zuckerberg ahead of his met with Sundarbakai.
And so you know, it's very much in the in
the documents. When you dig in, there's stuff moving very
quickly that Facebook was trying to fight and we was
trying to fight, and that project manager from Facebook is
is on the witness list for the Justice Department in the.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Next few baby. I could not wait for that. As
discussed listeners, Jyson is going to be back quite a
few times in the next few weeks to discuss the stuff.
I'm quite excited by this. So, what are some other
any other like notable projects on there, notable like Perroh
and such that you mentioned.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Yeah, you know, there's there's there's a project in which
the you know, I don't know how much you went
get into like the way auctions work, but typically okay,
so a lot of these auctions and and certainly Google's
auctions for their search ads from the very beginning, I've
always been second price auctions. So so the company that
(25:02):
the bidder that bids the highest doesn't actually pay their bid.
They pay the second highest bid plus a penny. Chymically
how it happens, right, And so there's all sorts of
rationale behind that. And so there's a project in which
the actual price that was paid was basically the third
(25:23):
the third highest, and then the dollar amounts. So they
paid the second highest, I'm sorry, and then they delivered
the third highest, and so they kept the margin in
between and then reinvested it back into boosting other auctions
basically bids. It was called Bernanke I think that was
(25:44):
the plane Bernanky, and then there was another flavor of that,
but it basically was like, you know, re routing some
of the margin between the second and third highest back
into the system to increase other bids.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
That makes sense, so but sorry if I misunderstand. How
did that benefit Google upon Mike.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Well, it it allowed them. The allegations are that by
then rerouting that money back in and boosting other bids,
it allowed Google's system to win more auctions. So it
was the same money flowing, but it allowed them to
win more auctions which help them take market share.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
That's it's crazy. It's crazy that it seems not just
it seems like an outright cone in so many places.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
I mean, you know, Google will try to argue for
each of these some sort of benefit to the advertisers
or to the publishers on one side or the other.
But I think ultimately what we'll see and I think
will be most damage into Google will there's there's likely
to be evidence that will show both of those considerations,
going into some math to say how does this help Google?
(26:53):
You know, And so you know, if you're if you're
able to see both sides of the transaction, you have
a clear conflict of interest and you're able to to
you know, manipulate the both sides of the business rather
than acting the best interests of both sides of the
business individually in a way to benefit yourself.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
So do we know yet who's going to get the
post or a cross examined.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yeah, we have, we have a witness list for sure.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Yeah, who you're looking forward to.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
You know, there's a couple ex Googlers that actually tried
to get their testimonies uh quashed. But that didn't happen today,
I mean so last week, I guess now so. But
there's a few ex employees.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
That know a lot about the advents that have been
around a long time. I think it's like Lesala, There's
a guy named Chris Scott Spencer. They just know a lot.
And uh, you know Neil Mohan who ran the double
click business that was then bought by Google and ran
the ad business for a long time. I think will
be super interesting.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
I think the Facebook witness that I mentioned just to
get an answer whether or not Jedi Blue was a
problem or not once in for all, I think will
be interesting. So there's a long list. There's you know,
there's key players from the ad tech business that have
competed against Google over the years or tried to the
guy that ran app Nexus, the guy that runs index Exchange.
(28:23):
These are like, you know, people that are very, very
knowledgeable in the entire history of the att tech business
that will be on the standard.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
So there's a dumb question, how big a deal is this?
How as far as his history of the tech industry goes,
how big is this?
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Well, I mean the Google antitrust suits themselves actually use
the description of the Assistant Attorney General cant Or. He
He described it as on the mount rushmore of anti
trust cases. You know, I think with Standard Oil, AT
and T and Microsoft was was Google. You know, this
(29:03):
is their advertising business, and you know, the actual advertising
revenue business is two hundred and fifty billion dollars quarter
of a trillion dollars. They'll argue this is just their
ad tech part of the business, so they'll say it's
thirty or forty billion. You know, as I mentioned, I
think the data fuels and I think this enables the
(29:25):
rest of their business in any way. So this is
a really big deal. And this is you know, this
is what funds journalism, entertainment across the internet.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Good that not in turn, I'm not I'm not I
think Google should get broken up. But is there a
world where this is better for journalism if.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
They get broken up? I think absolutely. Yeah. I think
there's short term concerns in any breakup outcome, because it's
going to be a headache and you know, the benefits
are going to take some time to start to play out.
But if you just if you just use the man sense,
do you think about the stock market or any sort
of marketplace having a company that's on the buy side
(30:06):
and the cell side and developing the rules. Ultimately, they're
going to take more and more money out of the
supply chain, right and so so. A world in which
the company on the buy side or the company on
the sell side have to act in the best interest
of the advertiser, whether it be the small, small mom
and pop store buying advertising, or the publisher on the
(30:26):
other end, being the local newspaper or national player or whatever,
you know, having to act in their best interests is
a really really important, you know, and common sense sort
of marketplace rule where you actually have competition that are
serving the best interests of the parties.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Do you think that this could kill Google? Because I
have this ongoing theory about this company that they can't
survive without their monopolies. I just don't. I don't know anything. Yeah,
in the sense that they make more than half of
their revenue from a from search, which they have a
monopoly on, connect to ads, which they have a monopoly
on where they hold all the data and completely rig
(31:19):
the dice for themselves. I don't see how Google survives
this in its current form. I don't even mean just
breaking them up. I just mean, if they are no
longer allowed to rig dice quite how they've been rigging them?
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Yeah to a quite. I mean, you know, in a
breakup scenario, then I think your answer is right that
they don't survive it. And you know, and maybe it's
best for shareholders anyway, if you if you study you know,
AT and T and other standard oil et cetera, you
know it could release more value anyway, if there's if
YouTube separated or any of the ad tech businesses separated,
(31:54):
how reliant are they? I mean that takes me back
a little bit aded to the search trial. I mean,
my my biggest obs arevation out of the search trial,
and I spent a lot of time studying it and
being in the courtroom that I think hasn't been totally
appreciated yet. Is that how important Google's scale in terms
of search queries is. And so they have ninety eight
(32:17):
percent of the mobile search queries eight percent, and.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
That ability search market the.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Queries themselves being asked into search prompts on mobile.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
And so just to be clear, you mean across every
single search engine?
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Oh yeah, sorry, yes, across general search engines.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Is the way it was defined that is completely insane
and so I and.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
You think about the scale of that, and importantly for
what they call tail queries. So a tail query for
the listeners, if they're not aware, is a query that's
never been asked before, right.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
And that makes up like what certain amount, like this
surprisingly large amount of.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Fifteen percent is what you know, what we learn in
a the UK's investigation of Google was that fifteen percent
of the queries any given day are tail queries. And
you know, those are the things I've never been asked
before in a search prompt. And so Judge Meta used
several times during the trial and the fall, used the
example of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey like that there
(33:21):
was a moment in time where nobody had ever put
those two names together in a prompt before, right, And
I don't know how quick it was after they started dating,
but it was a new query and unless you actually
had some context for it, you didn't know what it meant.
And so if you take that to the fifteen percent
of the billions of queries they're happying, you know, maybe
(33:43):
given a week on Google, their ability to understand those
queries and because of their scale and to decide what
to do with them in terms of driving clicks where
they go to satisfy the users and to target advertising
is extraordinary, very relative to anyone else, including nineteen times
(34:05):
on mobile, nineteen times more than the rest of the
market combined. And the rest of the market includes Microsoft right,
a three trillion dollar company.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
So so they just have this massive dates or advantage
that no one else could possibly have.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Right, And it's in particularly valuable in terms of recency
of data and queries like the new stuff.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
That being a yeah, so you can anticipate what adds
people might be.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Right or just where they want to go on the
internet when that search happens.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
But how can they use that dates to help themselves?
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Well, one, it locks them in because there's nothing more
frustrating than searching for something that's a new, fresh search.
You know, it's typically really interesting, it's typically related to news, right,
it's things that are happening in society in a given
day that probably journalists are actually the ones doing all
the work and carrying the cost and burden of And
(34:58):
then you know, if the search engine know the answer,
or if it gives you back results that aren't very good,
you get frustrated, right, So you end up back on
Google because they're better at it and they just lock
that in. And so you know that ninety eight percent
if you take that and apply it to the future,
and it's particularly AI world where everybody talks about in
(35:18):
the AI world how valuable capital is, right, so, and
how valuable compute is Amazon Meta. You know, these companies
have enormous compute, Microsoft, Google and enormous capital. But what
they don't have is what Google has, which is that
that query scale. And so Google's ability, when it wants
to to entrench itself even further is pretty significant in
(35:41):
terms of training large language models and and you know,
being able to respond appropriately to a prompt in the
AI world. And so they could ultimately and I think,
you know, based on what I was seeing, they could
squash even Microsoft and open AI when they want to, right,
and so.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
So do you think that they'll do? Do you think
that this could have wider ramifications than just Google.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
I think it could.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
I mean I think if you're watching this in your
Microsoft or your Apple, for sure you're thinking really hard
about how this could unlock opportunity for you. So I
think this is a big one.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
So what are you excited about What is the part
of the trial as we go into this, what are
you really looking forward to as a sports fan.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
As a sports fan, you know, I think the great
challenge and I think the just Department did a phenomenal
job of this and the Search trial is being able
to tell the story and explain it to the judge
in the room right into the public, explain their case.
And I think, you know, they did that in the
complaint very very well. I think people should know as
(36:47):
much as as much as there's this reputation that goes
back a long time that people in DC, whether it
be lawmakers or regulators, don't really understand technology. I would
just really strongly suggests that they're wrong on this one.
And the attorneys that are involved, and they were involved
in the Search trial and now involved in this ad
(37:08):
tech trial, they really have done their homework. These are
you know, these are really really strong, you know, strong
and competently tech, you know, technical folks that can dive
in and understand how things work. And they've they've done
their homework over the years. The questions that they were
asking back in twenty eighteen were already pretty impressive. I mean,
(37:30):
they are the questions that that the top ad tech
company people wouldn't be asking, you know, the people into
the industry would be asking. And then they've been you know,
studying that for now almost five you know, five years
before they filed their lawsuit, and so I'm really interested
in how they present their case and tell the story
for sure. You know, one thing that also will be
(37:50):
interesting is the chill I guess I described as the
chill over the room.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
You know.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
I I don't think it's a secret that I was
involved or or you had means with the just Department
over the years on this on this case. And one
of the things I told them very early on was
that probably the greatest symptom would just be the lack
of people willing to talk to them. Right that everybody
does business with Google, and Google is probably the most
(38:19):
important business partner for most companies in terms of their
news and information being found, in terms of their advertising
being delivered, et cetera, et cetera. So you're gonna have
a lot of witnesses that are under subpoenas and and
are there because they were ordered by the court to
be there, and they're gonna have to testify to the facts,
(38:39):
and that will be interesting to see. I don't think
they'll be talking much in the press about about these issues.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
And do you think you've kind of hinted the press
hasn't been covering like they've been covering it, Just to
be clear, But why do you think that this is
This feels like it should be the only story everywhere,
But it's quite quiet out there. Again, people are still
covering it.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
I mean, I think that the chill piece plays into
that too, and and so you know both. I don't
want to say they're fearful of covering it, but at
least some of the trade press. Google is an important
advertiser for their events and for their for their publications
the d C Press. Google is probably one of the
(39:22):
biggest sponsors of of their their sites and their newsletters,
and so that doesn't motivate them probably to be there.
And then on top of that, the resources are constrained
because Google sucked up a lot of the revenue, so
most newsrooms don't have enough back. We're now in the
day where all the local you know, Chicago, La, New York,
(39:46):
all these different publishers could all send their reporters, so
they instead rely on like the Associated Press or some
sort of wire reporter. Right, Yeah, so that's difficult.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
It's a difficult. I find it's quite difficult to analyze
because even like asking you how is Google will use
this monopoly, it's a multifaceted answer, and it almost feels
like people don't really realize how big Google is despite
knowing it ninety eight you just so I'm clear to
repeat this, it's ninety eight percent of all searches on mobile.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
That is insane. Yeah, yeah, that is like Ford, every
every single truck being made by Ford other than like
a tiny amount, but also every road also being made.
It boggles the mind.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Yeah. Yeah. And then the data that comes with it.
They'll talk about the revenue from that, but then the
data is what underpins all of this, and it's in
the case throughout an end, and the importance of that
data and the.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
Scale almost feels as if the money isn't quite as important,
or it is, but just the money is not enough
to analyze it.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
I agree, I agree, I mean I think the data
pieces as every as important and and it informs and
gives unique advantages that no one else has. If you
think about being able to merge that mobile query data
with the att tech data, with the browsing data, you know,
with the Android data. So yeah, so the press, I
(41:22):
think I'm optimistic that there will be more trade press
because this is advertising specific that will show up at
least for the first week, and that will be good.
On the flip side, I think also it's important to
know that this courthouse is fairly unique in that it
doesn't allow any devices in the building.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Any any but you put them, you just don't bring them.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
You don't you're not allowed to bring in the building.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
And so jesus.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
So there's no streaming, there's no recording, there's nothing.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Is there a live broadcast or anything.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
There is an overflow room where they will have a
broadcast into the other room for people that are in
the overflow room.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
But you can't a device to recall that.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
You're not all the right device into the building.
Speaker 2 (42:03):
What's the Russian now with that?
Speaker 1 (42:06):
I think it's old school court rules and uh, you
know it does it limits the ability for the public
to watch the witnesses and get visions. And so I
think that way this this courthouse is you know, this
may be interesting from a Google perspective. I mean, it's
it sees a lot of very sensitive cases. It's in
(42:29):
northern Virginia. So I think the CIA, the Pentagon, like
this judge, you know, as I mentioned, dealt with some
pretty sensitive matters, criminal matters over the years, and so
so I think that's the way they're they're used to operating.
It was it was kind of an amusing moment this
morning when Google tried to put in the last minute
request to have an extra laptop or two in the
(42:51):
room for the lawyers to be able to look up
stuff really quickly exhibits, and she denied it, and oh, so.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
It's gonna be it's gonna be like, just to be clear,
regular lawyers also print out stuff anyway, but it's going
to be just completely analog the whole way down.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Google will be allowed and the problem will be allowed
to have a device and a backup device to put
exhibits up on the screen so that people in the
courtroom will be able to see the visual exhibits on
the screens.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
So you have to write down a lot, you have
to write down a line.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
And she said that Google wasn't allowed to have any
other devices beyond those because that's not the way we
do things here.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
So so just a clear for our listeners. Jason will
be joining me every week to go through the happenings
of this case because I feel like it's the most
important thing happening in tech while also being one of
the more difficult things to pull apart.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
I agree, I agree. Well, thank you for the interest.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Yeah, of course. So Jason, where can people find you?
Because you're going to be following along and dropping stuff
on Twitter as well.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
Yeah, it will be I'm mad, Jason underscore kin't knt.
I also would do a plug if you don't mind for.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
Please, that's one we're asking US v Google ads dot com.
Speaker 1 (44:05):
Us v Google ads dot Com. There's a coalition of
organizations that are trying to make sure that the public
interest is met to and so there's those exhibits are
being posted there, and witness lists and and all sorts
of documents that as they come out. So I think
the goal that of that website is to make sure
(44:25):
that you know some of the challenges in the search
trial are are overcome for this one.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Well, Jason, good luck in there, bring your pen and
paper and we'll speak next week and get an update.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Excellent.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
Thanks for having me in, Thanks so much. Thank you
for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer of
the Better Offline theme song is Matasowski. You can check
out more of his music and audio projects at Matasowski
dot com, M A T T O. S O w
(45:00):
Ski dot com. You can email me at easy at
Better offline dot com or visit Better Offline dot com
to find more podcast links and of course, my newsletter.
I also really recommend you go to chat dot Where's
youreaed dot at to visit the discord, and go to
our slash Better Offline to check out our reddit. Thank
you so much for listening. Better Offline is a production
(45:21):
of cool Zone Media. For more from cool Zone Media,
visit our website cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us
out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Also media.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I'm your host edzit Charn. Yes,
and today I'm joined by Jason Kent, the CEO of
the Trade Association DC. And Jason, thank you for joining me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Pleased to be here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
So Jason is joining us today and we'll be joining
us more regularly to talk through the massive antitrust trial
going on with Google, the second of them. Jason, why
don't you set the scene of what's going on?
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Yeah? Sure, thanks Ed. Yeah, we just wrapped up getting
the opinion on the first trial, which was the search trial,
where Judge Meta decided an issued an opinion that Google
has a monopoly in search and a monopoly and search
text ads. So this is trial number two. It's going
to be starting on Monday the ninth in the Eastern
(01:03):
District of Virginia. And this one is focused on the
ad tech part of Google's business and everything related to it.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
So how does that How is that different because a
lot of people see them kind of as one homogeneous entity.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Sure, yeah, I mean the advertising for people to understand,
the advertising business for digital has now become almost entirely
a live kind of auction marketplace. Where if you think
of all these ad units across the web, they are
being bought and sold in near real time to the
highest bidder. And Google as a company has both the
(01:38):
software and a lot of the data that powers the
decision making. And so if you think about kind of
on the buy side, a bunch of companies bidding on
advertising units that they want to own to get in
front of consumers, and on the other end, you've got
the owners of those units, whether it be publishers or
Google itself. Google is the largest player on both sides
(02:00):
of those transactions, and they also run most of the
auctions too.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
So what is happening in this trial?
Speaker 1 (02:07):
So the Department of Justice started investing in Google back
in twenty eighteen, and they spent a few years doing it.
The state attorneys General, led by Texas filed a lawsuit
back at the end of twenty twenty saying that Google's
ad tech business violating I trust laws, and since then,
(02:29):
the Department of Justice filed its own lawsuit back in
January of twenty twenty three, so just eighteen months ago.
And they did it in Virginia, where it's kind of
known as the nickname is the Rocket docket because it
moves so fast, and so in less than eighteen months,
this one's gone. It's gotten to the point where now
we're about to have a trial starting on Monday, and
(02:52):
they'll present their arguments to take about four weeks, and
the look the judge there, the district judge, will determine
an issue, our opinion on whether or not the various
charges that are in the complaint she agrees with them,
and and whether or not they'll be remedies for it.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
And what are the judges roughly speaking.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
The judge judge, what are the charges? Yes, that Google
has a monopoly and I believe three different areas of
the advertising supply chain. And so that's the software that
publishers use, that's the software that runs the auctions, and
that's the software on the buy side that's being used
(03:36):
to bid on the on the ads. And in those
areas that they've also abused that monopoly power.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
How have they been abusing it? Let's get into it,
get into it. Well, you know, let's let's see how
they're abusing I.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Think, I mean, I think one thing that's helpful and
and you know, fortunately and maybe unfortunately for Google, their
own employees and some of the discovery for the lawsuits
did a comparison to the stock market. When you think
about this kind of live marketplace, anybody that's all flashboys
and or read the book on high speed trading, this
(04:11):
is is that plus maybe even more intense.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
And say a little bit about what that means for
those who might know.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Of sure, that means that if you think about these
advertising units that sit there across the web, that there
is incredibly high speed trading of those units that are
happening in milliseconds, meaning that you know, in a blink
of the eye, there are parties that are both bidding
on and then delivering on ad units based on a
(04:39):
whole range of targeting requirements and pricing, and then there's
rules around those auctions. And so if you think about
kind of the way a stock market works, which is
also happens and in real time, people are buying and
selling stock using machine, entirely using machines that have been
programmed to handle the bidding and the marketplace. Google is
(05:04):
doing that for the entire supply chain, both the buy
side and the cell side. And so you know, the
comparison that the Google employee made and also the Assistant
Attorney General did when they announced the lawsuit was to
the stock market as if Google, you know, was both buying,
was leading and on a majority of the software, both
for buying and for selling and for running the actual
(05:27):
auctions themselves.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
And so what's happened so far? You've been so you're
quite close that you're about twenty minutes in the courthouse Rougher.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Maybe about twenty minutes. Like what else? There's been a
number of pre what they call pre trial motions for
a variety of things to kind of figure out the
rules of the road for the trial when it starts Monday.
Some of that's just logistics. Some of that's really important
in terms of like what evidence will be allowed and
not allowed, who will testify and not testify, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
So what have you actually witnessed so far, like what
you've been in a few of these pre trial motions?
Speaker 1 (05:59):
Even yeah, I mean, well that's one thing. I just
start with the judge because this actually a little bit
in the weeds here. But this lawsuit originally start out
it was going to go before a jury of Americans
to make the decision. So you think about the just
Department having to explain this topic to the average American
(06:22):
that that changed a few months ago based on a
legal maneuver that Google did. And so now the judge
is going to be actually the one that will issue
the verdict and make the decision. And you know, my
observation is she is incredibly experienced. She's been a judge
for quite some time, and she's had some you know,
very very significant cases over her career, you know, involving
(06:47):
from al Qaeda terrorists on down to to you know,
nine to eleven related cases. So she's not intimidated at
all by anybody in the room, including Google for sure,
and so in that regard, you know, I'm very optimimistic.
She seems to only care about the law and justice,
(07:08):
which is what you want to see from a judge.
You know, Google, like with the Search trial, has the
best and the brightest attorneys that are out there. You know,
three or four firms working for them, and they've got
half the room full of their people. This is really
really important to them. The Just Department wants to break
up I mean, the outcome they want is they want
to break up Google, and so that's what this trial
(07:29):
is all about.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
How do you think how do you see that chances?
Speaker 1 (07:34):
You know, if you asked me, and I'm sure I
was on the record about this back a year ago,
I would have said that the chances for this one
were higher than the search the search lawsuit that they
just won. And so I also felt pretty optimistic about
the search lawsuits once they finished closing arguments, because I
thought they did a really good job explaining their case.
(07:54):
This one, I think it's even more obvious going in,
I mean to put in real numbers around. I mean,
they they the just Department's analysis and their experts analysis
is that Google has over ninety percent of the software
that publishers use to serve the ads, and then they've
got over they've got ninety eight percent of the mobile queries.
(08:18):
We learned that from the last decision. And so on
the buy side, they've got you know, almost you know,
ninety eight percent of the advertising demand that's coming through
from search ads. So like on both sides of the market,
they've you know, and then they get to write the rules.
So it's a problem.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
And as far as the original allegations go, can you
kind of break those down at all and explain what
the what the specific things that you would consider the
most important parts of this trial.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
Yeah, sure, you know that one that they took the
market power that they had on the advertising demand side,
and that they used that in order to create market
power dominance, if you will, in other parts of the
(09:09):
supply chain. And so one that I think is really
important is that we now have a decision from the
other court on that dominance on the demand side. And
so you know, JUDGMENTA already did the work of saying,
you know, he believes that Google. You know, they proved
the case just part of the case that Google has
(09:29):
a monopoly in search and in search text ads and
that they abuse that. And so that decision is no
longer just allegations as it relates to Google, and this
case claims that they use that market power to to
create dominance elsewhere. And so they walk in I think
in a much better place based on the prior opinion
(09:51):
that came out in August. You know, second thing I'll
hit on is that they tied you know that to
other parts of the business. So the exchange in the
in the ad server business in order to so basically
to force people to use the other products. So as
an example, you know, the argument or the allegation is.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
That you weren't able to get access to any of
that demand unless you use Google's addex product, right, And
so you know, the evidence looks pretty clear on that,
but they're gonna have to present that case, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
I think a third area that hit on is that
that the market itself is properly defined. That's always important
for NIT trust trials in cases. And so this case
is all about something called open web display advertising, and
Google will try to to blur that line, but I
think that's also what's is.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Open web display advertizing?
Speaker 1 (10:48):
Well, I guess it's easier to explain the way it's not.
And that's what that's what bothers Google is. You know,
it's not closed platforms. So it's not advertising on TikTok
or not advertising on Facebook. It's advertise that's available over
the web browser in which companies can participate in auctions
on the buy side or they can participate auctions on
(11:11):
the cell side. And you know, and those are auctions
that are happening for display advertising units on websites.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
So it's a good time to actually take a step
back and ask how does Google make money from advertising?
What are their advertising units? Because you've mentioned there's the
bidding process. But where do we see Google advertising?
Speaker 1 (11:31):
Well, they, you know, a majority of the advertising, and
it's become more and more over each year, is actually
on Google's own properties, so entertained out that's where they
make the most money because they don't have to share
it with anybody else, right, And so so you've got
the ads on Search, you've got the ads on Gmail,
you've got the ads on YouTube. So it's on what
they call their owned and operated properties. And then also
(11:55):
Google serves ads across the rest of the web, and
that's where they get a lot of scale and a
lot of data. And then they take a percentage of
the action on the byside, percentage of the action cell side,
percentage of the action and the auctions, and that all
adds up so that they're taking you know, allegedly thirty
to thirty two percent of the revenue or just the
(12:19):
technology that's being used in order to serve those ads.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Does the suit suggest does it give any idea of
what the balance so that you said that most of
their advertising goes through their own properties, does it balance
that out? It's all? Does it explain?
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Yeah, I think it's it's in there, and it's certainly
in their sec filings. You know, I think you know,
this gets to kind of one of the arguments I
think you'll hear Google make, and that certainly their their
proxies and kind of their advocates are making, is that
the part of their revenue that serves on other people's
properties on publisher sites is only about fifteen you know,
(12:58):
it's say fifteen percent or so of the revenue, and
it's declining the last couple of years, so it's not growing,
it's flat to declining. It's not that material.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
That's the off property revenue.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
That's off property revenue.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
That's very bad for them.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
But the common sense piece, well, yeah, but that's where
they also have the lower margin because they don't have
they have to share it with people. The common sense
piece is that, well, one, if that wasn't that important
to them, then they'd be offloading it, right because why
would you want to go get suited by the United
States j JUSTAHS Department and potentially broken up if it's
(13:34):
not that important to you. And then two that ignores
that's just the revenue piece. But I think it's important
to understand it that like and this will come out.
I think in a lot of the documents that the
data that they get from those auctions and from serving
ads across the web and from tracking users across the web.
(13:54):
I mean, there's this important moment in time that will
come up in the trial. I believe we're in twenty sixteen.
Google merged all of the ad tech data they have,
with all the search data they have, with all the
location data they have, with all the Android data, and
all the Chrome browsing data into one single profile, which
they promised they wouldn't do, and they went ahead and
did it. And if you think about the value of
(14:17):
that data that underpins it, that's really important.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
So when you say unites those profiles, is they have
a profile on you and me? Is it? Do we
just not know?
Speaker 1 (14:29):
I mean we expect that they know whether it's a
synonymous indicator or a placeholder for that user, But they
know enough that it's this device which is attached to
a person, and I know all this other information about it.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Yeah, this person may resemble that because I see in
twenty sixteen they dumped a ban on PII personally identify
them information. But is this separate to that? Is it
the combination of everything else.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
That I mean, that's what the reporting was in twenty sixteen,
and that's what the evidence that's starting to bubble up was.
Was this they call it Project Narnia is what we
just learned it. But that they merged, they dropped their
ban on PII being merged with search. Juliet Anglin from
public and I think did the report and and so
(15:20):
that you know, that was removing the guardrails basically, and
at least in my mind, and I think that will
be a part of the evidence.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
So within this, is there anything particularly surprising within the
first few Well, actually, let me take that back. I'm
sure there's surprising stuff, But what happens now? So we're
pushing this episode out on September ninth, the day of
the first trial. So what happens then and what happens
after that?
Speaker 1 (15:54):
Yeah, So the first couple of weeks, the just Department
will present what they call their case in chief. It's there,
you know, their evidence. So they're going to have a
slew of witnesses that have already been identified, both Google employees,
ex Google employees, you know, CEOs and top founders of
a lot of the competitive at tech companies, experts, et
(16:16):
cetera that you know probably have already been deposed and
will will now answer questions on the witness stand, and
they'll have a ton of exhibits that you know, we've
probably seen less than five percent of them, i'd say
at this point to prove their case, and Google have
a chance to ask questions too throughout, and then they'll
present their defense. I expect you'll take about four weeks total.
(16:40):
I think important things for people to know going into
the trial. You know I already covered that. I think
the judges is perfect for a case like this, so
that's very optimistic at this point. Also, I would say
it's very important to know that there was an important,
important hearing last week in which it's happened with multiple
(17:01):
lawsuits against Google, where Google guid in trouble for not
preserving documents. I was going to say, yeah, yeah, and
so Google at a point a number of years ago
issued a memo from their chief league officer and change
their systems so that any chat messages would by default
(17:24):
delete after twenty four hours, is the way it's been alleged,
and unless the employee actually proactively turned on their history
and turned off that purging because they run her a
litigation hole. Then the evidence was lost, and so the judge,
the judge very much expressed her concern about this had
(17:46):
happened and that probably a lot of evidence had been
deleted and that throughout the trials she's going to have
to take that into account whenever Google sends somebody up
to this with a stand that she's going to have
to have her own informtays and whether or not this
is a reliable testimony and whether or not there's you know,
information and exhibits that were not available to her because
(18:07):
of this policy. That's like really bad for Google going
into a trial, you know, like there already well, I
think that you know, ultimately she could decide to infer
that what they call a verse inferences, She could basically
decide that that there has been evidence that's been purged
in her mind, and therefore therefore Google was trying to
(18:31):
hide stuff that would have been incriminating to them or
prove the case of this department.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
So doesn't that weaken the case potentially on like appeal
if she does that a lot, or would it be
very carefully used?
Speaker 1 (18:42):
It would probably be carefully used. I think, you know,
anderstanding off. Judge Meta had the same concern and decision
you know, coming out of the search opinion, but he
said that he didn't need it, you know, he didn't
actually need to rely on it, that he was going
to find against Google, that it would monopoly and abused
its power without it, So he didn't need to have
(19:04):
that intent. She says, the intent is really important a
case like this, So we'll see how she how heavily
she weighs on it.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
At the end of the day. So on the ninth,
they are going the Homement of Justice will make their
first will begin making that case.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
They will, they will. Yep.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
So has anything interesting come out yet as far as
the initial motion and have we seen any e any
of the exhibits provided in ad once.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
Sure, Yeah, we've seen, I mean even their initial the
original complaint. We've seen and through reporting we've seen some
of the the evidence in details on a lot of
projects that Google had. This one's a lot of there's
a lot of code name projects which will make it
hard to keep up to, but keep up with. But
there's things like you know, Perot and Bernanki and all
(19:52):
these like fancy names Belle and they each have a
little clever story behind them. Jedi Jedi Blue.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
And behind those fancy names are typically experiments, they would
call it. Where Google is testing making changes to its
auctions in order to drive some sort of outcome, whether
it be more revenue for Google, whether it be more
market power or more business for Google, you know, driving
more revenue to the publishers or the advertisers. Like it's
(20:19):
them playing with the auctions.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
And so we've seen some of the details of those.
I think what we're going to see now is some
of the intent behind them and some of the communications
internally about them.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I'd be interested. So Jedi Blue, that was the collusion
with Facebook.
Speaker 1 (20:35):
Right, that was the alleged collusion with Facebook. It's very
much still around.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Well I thought that that got kind of dismissed in Europe.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Yeah, so Google has made that communication argument through some
of their proxies. It actually was dismissed in the the state.
AGS had their own case I mentioned was filed at
the end of twenty twenty in the Eastern District, Texas,
which was then moved to New York Southern just New York,
and while it was there that was dismissed from the case.
(21:07):
I won't go into why or when that was accurate,
but it was that specific charge which had potential criminal
criminal implications for them was dismissed. That the complaint then
and the lawsuit then moved back to Texas for a
(21:28):
different reason, and that discovery was reopened up about four
months ago, i'd say, on Facebook. And it also led
to a deposition of Sudar Pakai, the CEO of Google,
because he has unique knowledge about that deal.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
It also led and what was the deal.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
The deal as alleged was that Google Jedi. Project Jedi was,
as we understand, it was Google's attempt to match or
have their version of what's called header bitting, which was
this coding layer at the top of a web page
that opened up auctions so that other parties could compete
(22:09):
and participate in auctions, live auctions. And it was a
threat to Google's business because it meant that a publisher
could could participate put on their header of their web
page this code which would allow them to open up
their auctions to outside parties, so it didn't have to
go through Google Jedi Blue. So if you think about
(22:31):
that as a threat to Google, Jedi Blue was a
way to keep to do a deal with Facebook, as alleged,
so that Facebook would not support header bitting, that Facebook
would instead not participate in header evading, which would be
bad for header bitting, and would instead, you know, exchange
value with Google. And that value, as I understood it
from the complaints was and the reporting was that Facebook
(22:54):
would get additional matching of users and the auctions that
Google ran, and they would get speed preferences in the auction.
So if you think about the timing of bids.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
But auctions within Google's ad.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
Product, within Google system. Yeah, so that is.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
An obvious that's an obvious use of monopoly power that
one feels. How has that being I'm shocked that that
hasn't caused more problems for them.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Well, and where it got the Smiths it was it
was narrowly read by the judge as normal. You know,
these are two companies that are competing with each other
still at the end of the day, and and they
were both getting a value exchange that that made sense
for them, and Facebook was acting the best interest of
its business. You know, it was a questionable ruling, but
(23:43):
what's important to understand is that still it is part
of the conduct for the just Department case starting next week.
It's a part of the conduct for the State a
g case and Sinndarbakai has now been deposed about it
in the last two months, and the attorneys all flew
over the night Kingdom to depose Facebook's project manager on it,
(24:05):
who also believed Mark Zuckerberg ahead of his met with Sundarbakai.
And so you know, it's very much in the in
the documents. When you dig in, there's stuff moving very
quickly that Facebook was trying to fight and we was
trying to fight, and that project manager from Facebook is
is on the witness list for the Justice Department in the.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Next few baby. I could not wait for that. As
discussed listeners, Jyson is going to be back quite a
few times in the next few weeks to discuss the stuff.
I'm quite excited by this. So, what are some other
any other like notable projects on there, notable like Perroh
and such that you mentioned.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Yeah, you know, there's there's there's a project in which
the you know, I don't know how much you went
get into like the way auctions work, but typically okay,
so a lot of these auctions and and certainly Google's
auctions for their search ads from the very beginning, I've
always been second price auctions. So so the company that
(25:02):
the bidder that bids the highest doesn't actually pay their bid.
They pay the second highest bid plus a penny. Chymically
how it happens, right, And so there's all sorts of
rationale behind that. And so there's a project in which
the actual price that was paid was basically the third
(25:23):
the third highest, and then the dollar amounts. So they
paid the second highest, I'm sorry, and then they delivered
the third highest, and so they kept the margin in
between and then reinvested it back into boosting other auctions
basically bids. It was called Bernanke I think that was
(25:44):
the plane Bernanky, and then there was another flavor of that,
but it basically was like, you know, re routing some
of the margin between the second and third highest back
into the system to increase other bids.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
That makes sense, so but sorry if I misunderstand. How
did that benefit Google upon Mike.
Speaker 1 (26:06):
Well, it it allowed them. The allegations are that by
then rerouting that money back in and boosting other bids,
it allowed Google's system to win more auctions. So it
was the same money flowing, but it allowed them to
win more auctions which help them take market share.
Speaker 2 (26:24):
That's it's crazy. It's crazy that it seems not just
it seems like an outright cone in so many places.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
I mean, you know, Google will try to argue for
each of these some sort of benefit to the advertisers
or to the publishers on one side or the other.
But I think ultimately what we'll see and I think
will be most damage into Google will there's there's likely
to be evidence that will show both of those considerations,
going into some math to say how does this help Google?
(26:53):
You know, And so you know, if you're if you're
able to see both sides of the transaction, you have
a clear conflict of interest and you're able to to
you know, manipulate the both sides of the business rather
than acting the best interests of both sides of the
business individually in a way to benefit yourself.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
So do we know yet who's going to get the
post or a cross examined.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Yeah, we have, we have a witness list for sure.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
Yeah, who you're looking forward to.
Speaker 1 (27:21):
You know, there's a couple ex Googlers that actually tried
to get their testimonies uh quashed. But that didn't happen today,
I mean so last week, I guess now so. But
there's a few ex employees.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
That know a lot about the advents that have been
around a long time. I think it's like Lesala, There's
a guy named Chris Scott Spencer. They just know a lot.
And uh, you know Neil Mohan who ran the double
click business that was then bought by Google and ran
the ad business for a long time. I think will
be super interesting.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
I think the Facebook witness that I mentioned just to
get an answer whether or not Jedi Blue was a
problem or not once in for all, I think will
be interesting. So there's a long list. There's you know,
there's key players from the ad tech business that have
competed against Google over the years or tried to the
guy that ran app Nexus, the guy that runs index Exchange.
(28:23):
These are like, you know, people that are very, very
knowledgeable in the entire history of the att tech business
that will be on the standard.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
So there's a dumb question, how big a deal is this?
How as far as his history of the tech industry goes,
how big is this?
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Well, I mean the Google antitrust suits themselves actually use
the description of the Assistant Attorney General cant Or. He
He described it as on the mount rushmore of anti
trust cases. You know, I think with Standard Oil, AT
and T and Microsoft was was Google. You know, this
(29:03):
is their advertising business, and you know, the actual advertising
revenue business is two hundred and fifty billion dollars quarter
of a trillion dollars. They'll argue this is just their
ad tech part of the business, so they'll say it's
thirty or forty billion. You know, as I mentioned, I
think the data fuels and I think this enables the
(29:25):
rest of their business in any way. So this is
a really big deal. And this is you know, this
is what funds journalism, entertainment across the internet.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
Good that not in turn, I'm not I'm not I
think Google should get broken up. But is there a
world where this is better for journalism if.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
They get broken up? I think absolutely. Yeah. I think
there's short term concerns in any breakup outcome, because it's
going to be a headache and you know, the benefits
are going to take some time to start to play out.
But if you just if you just use the man sense,
do you think about the stock market or any sort
of marketplace having a company that's on the buy side
(30:06):
and the cell side and developing the rules. Ultimately, they're
going to take more and more money out of the
supply chain, right and so so. A world in which
the company on the buy side or the company on
the sell side have to act in the best interest
of the advertiser, whether it be the small, small mom
and pop store buying advertising, or the publisher on the
(30:26):
other end, being the local newspaper or national player or whatever,
you know, having to act in their best interests is
a really really important, you know, and common sense sort
of marketplace rule where you actually have competition that are
serving the best interests of the parties.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Do you think that this could kill Google? Because I
have this ongoing theory about this company that they can't
survive without their monopolies. I just don't. I don't know anything. Yeah,
in the sense that they make more than half of
their revenue from a from search, which they have a
monopoly on, connect to ads, which they have a monopoly
on where they hold all the data and completely rig
(31:19):
the dice for themselves. I don't see how Google survives
this in its current form. I don't even mean just
breaking them up. I just mean, if they are no
longer allowed to rig dice quite how they've been rigging them?
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Yeah to a quite. I mean, you know, in a
breakup scenario, then I think your answer is right that
they don't survive it. And you know, and maybe it's
best for shareholders anyway, if you if you study you know,
AT and T and other standard oil et cetera, you
know it could release more value anyway, if there's if
YouTube separated or any of the ad tech businesses separated,
(31:54):
how reliant are they? I mean that takes me back
a little bit aded to the search trial. I mean,
my my biggest obs arevation out of the search trial,
and I spent a lot of time studying it and
being in the courtroom that I think hasn't been totally
appreciated yet. Is that how important Google's scale in terms
of search queries is. And so they have ninety eight
(32:17):
percent of the mobile search queries eight percent, and.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
That ability search market the.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Queries themselves being asked into search prompts on mobile.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
And so just to be clear, you mean across every
single search engine?
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Oh yeah, sorry, yes, across general search engines.
Speaker 2 (32:36):
Is the way it was defined that is completely insane
and so I and.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
You think about the scale of that, and importantly for
what they call tail queries. So a tail query for
the listeners, if they're not aware, is a query that's
never been asked before, right.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
And that makes up like what certain amount, like this
surprisingly large amount of.
Speaker 1 (32:57):
Fifteen percent is what you know, what we learn in
a the UK's investigation of Google was that fifteen percent
of the queries any given day are tail queries. And
you know, those are the things I've never been asked
before in a search prompt. And so Judge Meta used
several times during the trial and the fall, used the
example of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey like that there
(33:21):
was a moment in time where nobody had ever put
those two names together in a prompt before, right, And
I don't know how quick it was after they started dating,
but it was a new query and unless you actually
had some context for it, you didn't know what it meant.
And so if you take that to the fifteen percent
of the billions of queries they're happying, you know, maybe
(33:43):
given a week on Google, their ability to understand those
queries and because of their scale and to decide what
to do with them in terms of driving clicks where
they go to satisfy the users and to target advertising
is extraordinary, very relative to anyone else, including nineteen times
(34:05):
on mobile, nineteen times more than the rest of the
market combined. And the rest of the market includes Microsoft right,
a three trillion dollar company.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
So so they just have this massive dates or advantage
that no one else could possibly have.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Right, And it's in particularly valuable in terms of recency
of data and queries like the new stuff.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
That being a yeah, so you can anticipate what adds
people might be.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Right or just where they want to go on the
internet when that search happens.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
But how can they use that dates to help themselves?
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Well, one, it locks them in because there's nothing more
frustrating than searching for something that's a new, fresh search.
You know, it's typically really interesting, it's typically related to news, right,
it's things that are happening in society in a given
day that probably journalists are actually the ones doing all
the work and carrying the cost and burden of And
(34:58):
then you know, if the search engine know the answer,
or if it gives you back results that aren't very good,
you get frustrated, right, So you end up back on
Google because they're better at it and they just lock
that in. And so you know that ninety eight percent
if you take that and apply it to the future,
and it's particularly AI world where everybody talks about in
(35:18):
the AI world how valuable capital is, right, so, and
how valuable compute is Amazon Meta. You know, these companies
have enormous compute, Microsoft, Google and enormous capital. But what
they don't have is what Google has, which is that
that query scale. And so Google's ability, when it wants
to to entrench itself even further is pretty significant in
(35:41):
terms of training large language models and and you know,
being able to respond appropriately to a prompt in the
AI world. And so they could ultimately and I think,
you know, based on what I was seeing, they could
squash even Microsoft and open AI when they want to, right,
and so.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
So do you think that they'll do? Do you think
that this could have wider ramifications than just Google.
Speaker 1 (36:04):
I think it could.
Speaker 4 (36:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
I mean I think if you're watching this in your
Microsoft or your Apple, for sure you're thinking really hard
about how this could unlock opportunity for you. So I
think this is a big one.
Speaker 2 (36:17):
So what are you excited about What is the part
of the trial as we go into this, what are
you really looking forward to as a sports fan.
Speaker 1 (36:25):
As a sports fan, you know, I think the great
challenge and I think the just Department did a phenomenal
job of this and the Search trial is being able
to tell the story and explain it to the judge
in the room right into the public, explain their case.
And I think, you know, they did that in the
complaint very very well. I think people should know as
(36:47):
much as as much as there's this reputation that goes
back a long time that people in DC, whether it
be lawmakers or regulators, don't really understand technology. I would
just really strongly suggests that they're wrong on this one.
And the attorneys that are involved, and they were involved
in the Search trial and now involved in this ad
(37:08):
tech trial, they really have done their homework. These are
you know, these are really really strong, you know, strong
and competently tech, you know, technical folks that can dive
in and understand how things work. And they've they've done
their homework over the years. The questions that they were
asking back in twenty eighteen were already pretty impressive. I mean,
(37:30):
they are the questions that that the top ad tech
company people wouldn't be asking, you know, the people into
the industry would be asking. And then they've been you know,
studying that for now almost five you know, five years
before they filed their lawsuit, and so I'm really interested
in how they present their case and tell the story
for sure. You know, one thing that also will be
(37:50):
interesting is the chill I guess I described as the
chill over the room.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
You know.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
I I don't think it's a secret that I was
involved or or you had means with the just Department
over the years on this on this case. And one
of the things I told them very early on was
that probably the greatest symptom would just be the lack
of people willing to talk to them. Right that everybody
does business with Google, and Google is probably the most
(38:19):
important business partner for most companies in terms of their
news and information being found, in terms of their advertising
being delivered, et cetera, et cetera. So you're gonna have
a lot of witnesses that are under subpoenas and and
are there because they were ordered by the court to
be there, and they're gonna have to testify to the facts,
(38:39):
and that will be interesting to see. I don't think
they'll be talking much in the press about about these issues.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
And do you think you've kind of hinted the press
hasn't been covering like they've been covering it, Just to
be clear, But why do you think that this is
This feels like it should be the only story everywhere,
But it's quite quiet out there. Again, people are still
covering it.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
I mean, I think that the chill piece plays into
that too, and and so you know both. I don't
want to say they're fearful of covering it, but at
least some of the trade press. Google is an important
advertiser for their events and for their for their publications
the d C Press. Google is probably one of the
(39:22):
biggest sponsors of of their their sites and their newsletters,
and so that doesn't motivate them probably to be there.
And then on top of that, the resources are constrained
because Google sucked up a lot of the revenue, so
most newsrooms don't have enough back. We're now in the
day where all the local you know, Chicago, La, New York,
(39:46):
all these different publishers could all send their reporters, so
they instead rely on like the Associated Press or some
sort of wire reporter. Right, Yeah, so that's difficult.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
It's a difficult. I find it's quite difficult to analyze
because even like asking you how is Google will use
this monopoly, it's a multifaceted answer, and it almost feels
like people don't really realize how big Google is despite
knowing it ninety eight you just so I'm clear to
repeat this, it's ninety eight percent of all searches on mobile.
Speaker 1 (40:20):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
That is insane. Yeah, yeah, that is like Ford, every
every single truck being made by Ford other than like
a tiny amount, but also every road also being made.
It boggles the mind.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Yeah. Yeah. And then the data that comes with it.
They'll talk about the revenue from that, but then the
data is what underpins all of this, and it's in
the case throughout an end, and the importance of that
data and the.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
Scale almost feels as if the money isn't quite as important,
or it is, but just the money is not enough
to analyze it.
Speaker 1 (40:56):
I agree, I agree, I mean I think the data
pieces as every as important and and it informs and
gives unique advantages that no one else has. If you
think about being able to merge that mobile query data
with the att tech data, with the browsing data, you know,
with the Android data. So yeah, so the press, I
(41:22):
think I'm optimistic that there will be more trade press
because this is advertising specific that will show up at
least for the first week, and that will be good.
On the flip side, I think also it's important to
know that this courthouse is fairly unique in that it
doesn't allow any devices in the building.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Any any but you put them, you just don't bring them.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
You don't you're not allowed to bring in the building.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
And so jesus.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
So there's no streaming, there's no recording, there's nothing.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Is there a live broadcast or anything.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
There is an overflow room where they will have a
broadcast into the other room for people that are in
the overflow room.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
But you can't a device to recall that.
Speaker 1 (42:01):
You're not all the right device into the building.
Speaker 2 (42:03):
What's the Russian now with that?
Speaker 1 (42:06):
I think it's old school court rules and uh, you
know it does it limits the ability for the public
to watch the witnesses and get visions. And so I
think that way this this courthouse is you know, this
may be interesting from a Google perspective. I mean, it's
it sees a lot of very sensitive cases. It's in
(42:29):
northern Virginia. So I think the CIA, the Pentagon, like
this judge, you know, as I mentioned, dealt with some
pretty sensitive matters, criminal matters over the years, and so
so I think that's the way they're they're used to operating.
It was it was kind of an amusing moment this
morning when Google tried to put in the last minute
request to have an extra laptop or two in the
(42:51):
room for the lawyers to be able to look up
stuff really quickly exhibits, and she denied it, and oh, so.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
It's gonna be it's gonna be like, just to be clear,
regular lawyers also print out stuff anyway, but it's going
to be just completely analog the whole way down.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Google will be allowed and the problem will be allowed
to have a device and a backup device to put
exhibits up on the screen so that people in the
courtroom will be able to see the visual exhibits on
the screens.
Speaker 2 (43:19):
So you have to write down a lot, you have
to write down a line.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
And she said that Google wasn't allowed to have any
other devices beyond those because that's not the way we
do things here.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
So so just a clear for our listeners. Jason will
be joining me every week to go through the happenings
of this case because I feel like it's the most
important thing happening in tech while also being one of
the more difficult things to pull apart.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
I agree, I agree. Well, thank you for the interest.
Speaker 2 (43:47):
Yeah, of course. So Jason, where can people find you?
Because you're going to be following along and dropping stuff
on Twitter as well.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
Yeah, it will be I'm mad, Jason underscore kin't knt.
I also would do a plug if you don't mind for.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
Please, that's one we're asking US v Google ads dot com.
Speaker 1 (44:05):
Us v Google ads dot Com. There's a coalition of
organizations that are trying to make sure that the public
interest is met to and so there's those exhibits are
being posted there, and witness lists and and all sorts
of documents that as they come out. So I think
the goal that of that website is to make sure
(44:25):
that you know some of the challenges in the search
trial are are overcome for this one.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Well, Jason, good luck in there, bring your pen and
paper and we'll speak next week and get an update.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Excellent.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
Thanks for having me in, Thanks so much. Thank you
for listening to Better Offline. The editor and composer of
the Better Offline theme song is Matasowski. You can check
out more of his music and audio projects at Matasowski
dot com, M A T T O. S O w
(45:00):
Ski dot com. You can email me at easy at
Better offline dot com or visit Better Offline dot com
to find more podcast links and of course, my newsletter.
I also really recommend you go to chat dot Where's
youreaed dot at to visit the discord, and go to
our slash Better Offline to check out our reddit. Thank
you so much for listening. Better Offline is a production
(45:21):
of cool Zone Media. For more from cool Zone Media,
visit our website cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us
out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.