- Dec 13, 2000
- 4,362
- 11
- 81
Any guess when Government anti-Trust folks go after Google and Facebook?
Is this thread a re-tread?
Is this thread a re-tread?
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.Better to start with the ISPs.
Any guess when Government anti-Trust folks go after Google and Facebook?
Is this thread a re-tread?
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.
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 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 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
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?
Any guess when Government anti-Trust folks go after Google and Facebook?
Is this thread a re-tread?
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.