ineedabuttrub t1_iy9rm08 wrote
Alphabet had a 2022Q3 earnings of $69 billion. A $9.4 million dollar fine to them is the same as fining someone making $100k per year $3.41. Literal pocket change.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iy9wyqs wrote
The math checks out.
I see it as, Google had to spend a tiny bit more on their marketing budget, essentially.
DrSpreadOtt t1_iyaoc1o wrote
They had to spend $0.30 more on their marketing budget to be exact. Guess some heads will roll for this outrageous blunder. $0.30 is a lot of money.
outerproduct t1_iyaj34y wrote
I was about to say, they probably paid less in marketing haha.
CocaineHammer t1_iyechdy wrote
Cost of doing business should put me in charge of fines they'd soon stop there shady stuff.
[deleted] t1_iydkcr1 wrote
[deleted]
ShankThatSnitch t1_iydqodb wrote
I did confirm, and you are wrong.
[deleted] t1_iydr57d wrote
[deleted]
ShankThatSnitch t1_iydrxqt wrote
It's funny cause your are so arrogant, and assholish, and don't realize you are dumb.
ShankThatSnitch t1_iydrodi wrote
9,400,000 ÷ 69,000,000,000 = 0.000136
0.000136 × 100,000 = 13.623
13.623 ÷ 4 = 3.406
Take a moment and re-read the comment, and try and do your math again.
squarefan80 t1_iy9yi2p wrote
which is why these fees need to be percentage in nature and not fixed; be it yearly earnings or held assets. make the ‘cost of doing business’ actually debilitating so they actually have to consider their actions.
yeah. pipe dream, i know…
dizorkmage t1_iya5hwz wrote
I'm just tired of pretending, bring on the corporate overloards, least then I'll get my blade runner sex robot, some cyber punk implants and waste some xenomorphs in space.
Timbershoe t1_iya9x6g wrote
Best I can do is get you wasted, and send you to space as a sex doll for xenomorphs to implant.
DukeOfGeek t1_iyabpkd wrote
But still, sex, right?
mordecai98 t1_iybpvh4 wrote
Count your blessings
Sweetwill62 t1_iybp2we wrote
Not just butt sex.
Mundane-Ranger9491 t1_iyagg2a wrote
Xenomorph always seemed to win. So, maybe not work for Wayland? Lol
BaronMostaza t1_iycre90 wrote
Hope you like used implants and refurbished sex robots from the scrap heap because that's the best you might eventually afford
forgotten_tomato t1_iybf2h4 wrote
you are asking lawmakers punish the very orgs that donates money to them. this is all a show for us plebs
squarefan80 t1_iydd781 wrote
yeah. gods forbid some reason, common sense and decency in lawmaking.
only half /s
forgotten_tomato t1_iyebbiy wrote
It's depressing to think about. The monkeys at the top exploit and uses the monkeys down below for their own benefit.
TheThingsWeMake t1_iya8mxt wrote
In this case it just makes this method of marketing non-viable, so in theory does what the fine is meant to. But yeah I'm not so naive to think they won't just do some other shady trick next time.
insultant_ t1_iyamesp wrote
“Not my senator!” - tech execs
EntryParking t1_iycp7qr wrote
In this case? Over a paid testimonial?
bernyzilla t1_iyba8gq wrote
The real question is if they gained more profit off the sales that those bribes generated. If that's the case, then this paltry fine is just a good investment from Google's perspective.
timisher t1_iyathrj wrote
Probably like 1c an infraction
[deleted] t1_iyb1buc wrote
[deleted]
spookje t1_iybedhf wrote
Yeah. Unfortunately, Google is the kind of company that just has a budget category for this kind of stuff. They literally have a yearly budget item for paying millions of EU fines to deal with GDPR violations as well. Hell, this Pixel one probably comes out of the Pixel marketing budget to begin with.
sevargmas t1_iybedys wrote
Gross or net earnings?
ineedabuttrub t1_iybn2h3 wrote
Gross earnings.
Oscarcharliezulu t1_iybsks5 wrote
But isn’t this just advertising - advertising is paying people to say good things. What they need to do is mark them as ‘ads’
alcoholisthedevil t1_iycojim wrote
And who does the fine even go to?
RejZoR t1_iycovo6 wrote
Basically they paid "advertisers" 9.4 million bucks. That's not that much.
nutsotic t1_iycw9f9 wrote
Cost of doing business
CyndaquilTyphlosion t1_iyd5g8z wrote
I disagree with the maths, personal pet peeve since affordability is not a linear scale. I'd say it's less than even half that.
daviEnnis t1_iya2pzm wrote
I don't think they'll view it like that - was the marketing they received worth whatever they paid, plus 9.4mil? Not every crime is supposed to come with a crippling punishment.
And honestly, who believes all those podcast hosts and their scripted line or two about how they use x product, and theyd be using it even if they weren't a sponsor?
[deleted] t1_iyao361 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments