Internet monopolys

[GullyFoyle]

Any guess when Government anti-Trust folks go after Google and Facebook?
Is this thread a re-tread?

 

[Sonikku]

When was the last time a monopoly got broken in this country? It seems like Microsoft came close, back when their OS was on about 95% of computers. But not even that panned out.

 

[snoopy7548]

Better to start with the ISPs.

 

[lxskllr]

Better to start with the ISPs.

I'm skeptical of government regulating software services. There's some nuance, but generally, they're monopolies people foolishly choose for themselves. Hardware/infrastructure monopolies are far more detrimental, and more in need of oversight.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Any guess when Government anti-Trust folks go after Google and Facebook?
Is this thread a re-tread?

I look at things a bit differently - and I honestly consider things like Google and Facebook to be the lowest tier of priority.

The reason being: No one forces you to use Facebook. It's not a necessity in life. There is also plenty of competition in the realm (IMO) - Twatter, Myspace, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Tumblr, Snapchat, Reddit...

There are also alternatives with Google as well, it's not their fault everyone chooses to search with them?


My beef and top priority with monopolies are when you are exhausted of options, and you don't really have a choice in what you use. Two Prime examples:

1) Internet. Cable internet can EASILY be argued as a necessity. Pretty much everything runs through it now. Schools (public education) I hear has options where students can access and submit stuff online. I'm talking grade school - not college. On top of that, plenty of places when it comes to getting a job require that you apply online. So when you only have 1 option for reasonable internet, that is a monopoly IMO. The big ones actively work together to say "Okay, you get this area, and I get that area so we don't compete". This means they control the market, and they control the pricing.

2) Airlines. So much consolidation over the years, and similar to cable, each of the Big 3 (United, Delta, and AA) hold monopolies on certain airports. E.g. Chicago is a United Hub. Dallas is an American Airlines hub. Atlanta is a Delta hub. When you don't have reasonable options for competition in an already developed market, that is when there is a problem.


You folks that think Facebook and Google are the priorities really need to put your head on straight.

 

[snoopy7548]

I'm skeptical of government regulating software services. There's some nuance, but generally, they're monopolies people foolishly choose for themselves. Hardware/infrastructure monopolies are far more detrimental, and more in need of oversight.

Yep. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook or Google; with ISPs, often you only have two choices - the monopoly in your area or nothing.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

I would much rather the govt focus on cable/ISP provider side of the equation. I'm living in an area where I have 1 choice and it's bad. well, 2 if you count DSL which is useless. The cable companies are just living the high life. charging huge rates to cover their losses on video content and raising rates every year. I personally can't wait for starlink to bring in a little competition to the market.

 

[squirrel dog]

Well today I had hoped to watch the women's final in soccer , but Nexstar is in a money grab with Fox , so it is blocked in Louisiana , least where I am .

 

[GullyFoyle]

Both Google and Facebook, being in California, are anti-Poltical Conservative, and are squashing conservative thinkers. Anyone have a problem with that. Are we all Democrats here?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Both Google and Facebook, being in California, are anti-Poltical Conservative, and are squashing conservative thinkers. Anyone have a problem with that. Are we all Democrats here?

I agree in that they need to be regulated like a utility company.

Here is the problem: You can't police certain contact that you don't agree with - or write vague rules that can be interpreted for just about anything (e.g. "hate speech").

If you are regulating content to that extent, then you are responsible for all content and should be sued when someone uploads something illegal, etc. Instead, they put their hands off and say "Oh were not liable for what people upload!" ). Well which one is it? You can't have it both ways of policing content and not being responsible for it - especially when it's sketchy interpretation with no real guide to following vague rules.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility

 

[darkswordsman17]

I look at things a bit differently - and I honestly consider things like Google and Facebook to be the lowest tier of priority.

The reason being: No one forces you to use Facebook. It's not a necessity in life. There is also plenty of competition in the realm (IMO) - Twatter, Myspace, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Tumblr, Snapchat, Reddit...

There are also alternatives with Google as well, it's not their fault everyone chooses to search with them?


My beef and top priority with monopolies are when you are exhausted of options, and you don't really have a choice in what you use. Two Prime examples:

1) Internet. Cable internet can EASILY be argued as a necessity. Pretty much everything runs through it now. Schools (public education) I hear has options where students can access and submit stuff online. I'm talking grade school - not college. On top of that, plenty of places when it comes to getting a job require that you apply online. So when you only have 1 option for reasonable internet, that is a monopoly IMO. The big ones actively work together to say "Okay, you get this area, and I get that area so we don't compete". This means they control the market, and they control the pricing.

2) Airlines. So much consolidation over the years, and similar to cable, each of the Big 3 (United, Delta, and AA) hold monopolies on certain airports. E.g. Chicago is a United Hub. Dallas is an American Airlines hub. Atlanta is a Delta hub. When you don't have reasonable options for competition in an already developed market, that is when there is a problem.


You folks that think Facebook and Google are the priorities really need to put your head on straight.

I'm not sure where you think that's different thinking, that's generally the consensus. That its dumb to be screaming about regulating Facebook when they refuse to regulate ISPs even though they literally created a government entity specifically to regulate communications companies so long ago. And when that's generally acknowledged by just about everyone as a major problem. Make communications cheap and its much harder for entities to dominate them either direction, as not regulating ISPs actually helps establish Facebook and Google as insurmountable giants that only other big deep pocketed corporations can do anything about (hence why Disney has been buying up all the IP they can, so they can dominate content side).

We're not far from Ma Bell (just in the guise of a "split" Verizon and AT&T) dominating the market again, only they arguably would have more power now than Ma Bell did back then, as they're in other markets (some that didn't exist much back then, cable TV was still relatively minor back then; and of course the internet).

I agree in that they need to be regulated like a utility company.

Here is the problem: You can't police certain contact that you don't agree with - or write vague rules that can be interpreted for just about anything (e.g. "hate speech").

If you are regulating content to that extent, then you are responsible for all content and should be sued when someone uploads something illegal, etc. Instead, they put their hands off and say "Oh were not liable for what people upload!" ). Well which one is it? You can't have it both ways of policing content and not being responsible for it - especially when it's sketchy interpretation with no real guide to following vague rules.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_as_a_public_utility

I don't because social media is not a utility. ISPs absolutely are though and should be regulated somewhat similarly.

Er, yes you can (seriously, WTF? If you can't control you spouting hate speech, sorry that's fully on you). Hate speech is pretty well established, it really is not nearly the teflon coated waterslide that some people try and pretend it is. The people screaming about that these days are the ones trying to spread hate speech and they're trying to make it ok to spew that type of garbage, as well as trying to make it accepted and established as part of government policy. And they've blinded average people by framing its a completely false "free speech" issue when they're actively working to inhibit others' freedom of speech.

They were already being required to do that (thanks to content companies threatening to cut them off - who originally tried to force the government to regulate and police that on their behalf until that got exposed when the dumbshit AG of I think it was Alabama got caught red handed by using shit written by content companies' lawyers in his attempt to go after Google for shit he claimed wasn't at all what it really was). I hope you realize that most of the anti-Google sentiment is being funded by that (after they got found out for writing the shit for the politicians they were paying, they then went the astroturf method where they're trying to prop up a sham Tea Party esque "grassroots initiative" - incidentally they're using basically the same morons that shilled for the Tea Party if you needed any more reason to see it for what it is - there's a reason why conservatives are raging about social media companies just like they were about government regulation around 2010 - its because their media is being paid to push this shit to their morons, with media companies like the MPAA/RIAA doing what the Koch brothers did about a decade ago).

Both Google and Facebook, being in California, are anti-Poltical Conservative, and are squashing conservative thinkers. Anyone have a problem with that. Are we all Democrats here?

And that's the fundamental misunderstanding of this issue. I say misunderstanding because its not misunderstood, its just one side is lying about their motives. If you actually saw the insane shit that conservatives are posting on social media, you'd understand why social media companies do not want it on their platforms, and do not want to be responsible for enabling them to spread their hateful shit to the people they're intentionally trying to harm with it. Freedom of speech does not give you the unfettered right to harass and threaten people. Even the government has the right to clamp down hard on that shit (well until they get enough conservative judges to start ruling that hate speech isn't just ok, but absolutely is legal as official government policy). Its not anyone's fault that right wingers can't express themselves without talking about how all gays should be shot, blacks were better off as slaves, immigrants are rapists and should be put in concentration camps and sent elsewhere (or just murdered, notice a recurring theme in their rhetoric, if you don't like it well it should be their right to shoot you; oh and should be their right to rape women, they were asking for it, they should've made them the damn sandwich).

 

[darkswordsman17]

Any guess when Government anti-Trust folks go after Google and Facebook?
Is this thread a re-tread?

They've already tried several times, but it keeps being revealed for the sham it ends up being.

Yes, this has been covered a LOT in P&N.

 

[sdifox]

Lol your supreme court doesn't care about elections and you want then to care about private enterprises?

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Hmm, business startup has competition. They stick to their game and most of the competition go away while the rest decide it ain't worth it. You continue to be successful and people keep using your service. This is considered a bad thing. And worse yet, the thing you brought is free for consumers and most businesses. That is how I see the search engine field. Not a Google loyalist but I find it funny how failures by other companies and disheartened companies still competing need government parenting. Sound like the EU. "We need to give the edge to European companies even if the non-EU is better and more successful; otherwise we just fine the non-EU competition and welfare our own.

I also feel the same way with Amazon, which by the way doesn't offer and price-matching service. Yet, their competition still can't beat them, and at best can only barely compete with them. That makes Amazon bad. Jesus, just buy stock in Google and Amazon and win like Charlie Sheen.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I also feel the same way with Amazon, which by the way doesn't offer and price-matching service. Yet, their competition still can't beat them, and at best can only barely compete with them. That makes Amazon bad. Jesus, just buy stock in Google and Amazon and win like Charlie Sheen.

Aids is winning?