Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

548

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.

154

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.

34

outerproduct t1_iyaj34y wrote

I was about to say, they probably paid less in marketing haha.

10

CocaineHammer t1_iyechdy wrote

Cost of doing business should put me in charge of fines they'd soon stop there shady stuff.

1

[deleted] t1_iydkcr1 wrote

[deleted]

−1

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.

3

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…

61

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.

24

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

2

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

3

squarefan80 t1_iydd781 wrote

yeah. gods forbid some reason, common sense and decency in lawmaking.

only half /s

3

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.

1

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.

1

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.

7

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.

1

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’

1

RejZoR t1_iycovo6 wrote

Basically they paid "advertisers" 9.4 million bucks. That's not that much.

1

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.

1

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?

−9