| 1 | PROFESSOR WHO COINED TERM 'NET NEUTRALITY' THINKS IT'S TIME TO \r |
| 2 | BREAK UP FACEBOOK (THEVERGE.COM) \r |
| 3 | \r |
| 4 | Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (BeauHD)\r |
| 5 | from the easier-said-than-done dept.\r |
| 6 | \r |
| 7 | o News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/06/2043213/professor-who-coined-term-net-neutrality-thinks-its-time-to-break-up-facebook\r |
| 8 | o Source link: https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust\r |
| 9 | \r |
| 10 | \r |
| 11 | pgmrdlm shares a report from The Verge: Best known for coining\r |
| 12 | the phrase "net neutrality" and his book The Master Switch:\r |
| 13 | The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Wu has a new book\r |
| 14 | coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust\r |
| 15 | in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a\r |
| 16 | return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of\r |
| 17 | Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and\r |
| 18 | other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they\r |
| 19 | get bigger and bigger. "We live in America, which has a strong\r |
| 20 | and proud tradition of breaking up companies that are too big\r |
| 21 | for inefficient reasons," Wu told me on this week's Vergecast.\r |
| 22 | "We need to reverse this idea that it's not an American\r |
| 23 | tradition. We've broken up dozens of companies." "I think if\r |
| 24 | you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and\r |
| 25 | Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions\r |
| 26 | have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number\r |
| 27 | of reasons," says Wu. And breaking up the company wouldn't be\r |
| 28 | hard, he says. "What would be the harm? You'll have three\r |
| 29 | competitors. It's not 'Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp\r |
| 30 | and Instagram, well then the whole world's going to fall\r |
| 31 | apart.' It would be like 'Okay, now you have some companies\r |
| 32 | actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.'"\r |
| 33 | Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like\r |
| 34 | Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law,\r |
| 35 | suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major rethinking of\r |
| 36 | how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant\r |
| 37 | platform companies give their products away for free, and the\r |
| 38 | ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems\r |
| 39 | to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that we all think\r |
| 40 | seriously about the conditions that create innovation. "I\r |
| 41 | think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I\r |
| 42 | think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector," says Wu.\r |
| 43 | \r |
| 44 | \r |
| 45 | ** Safe Harbor (Score:5, Interesting)\r |
| 46 | (by Kunedog ( 1033226 ))\r |
| 47 | \r |
| 48 | \r |
| 49 | There's a simpler way:\r |
| 50 | [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]\r |
| 51 | \r |
| 52 | If they want to curate content according to their political\r |
| 53 | bias, then treat them like the politically-biased media outlets\r |
| 54 | they are, legally liable for the content they host, instead of\r |
| 55 | platforms under "safe harbor" protections. If they want to\r |
| 56 | continue to be treated like platforms, then they can keep their\r |
| 57 | hands off their political opponents' speech.\r |
| 58 | \r |
| 59 | \r |
| 60 | \r |
| 61 | \r |
| 62 | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMLLlnRCBqg\r |
| 63 | \r |
| 64 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r |
| 65 | (by HornWumpus ( 783565 ))\r |
| 66 | \r |
| 67 | \r |
| 68 | They're already not 'common carriers' so they really didn't\r |
| 69 | lose anything by curating.\r |
| 70 | The solution is to reestablish 'common carrier' protections\r |
| 71 | for those web forums that deserve it.\r |
| 72 | \r |
| 73 | \r |
| 74 | ** Re:Safe Harbor (Score:4, Interesting)\r |
| 75 | (by pots ( 5047349 ))\r |
| 76 | \r |
| 77 | \r |
| 78 | I didn't read the article, but the summary has nothing to do\r |
| 79 | with what you're talking about. The issue at hand is\r |
| 80 | monopolies and the consequent stifling of innovation and lack\r |
| 81 | of competitive pressure, that being the only thing which\r |
| 82 | makes our economy work for people instead of against them.\r |
| 83 | \r |
| 84 | \r |
| 85 | ** Holy Fuck (Score:1)\r |
| 86 | (by Anonymous Coward)\r |
| 87 | \r |
| 88 | \r |
| 89 | Why do I bother coming here anymore?\r |
| 90 | \r |
| 91 | ** \r |
| 92 | \r |
| 93 | ** Re: (Score:3)\r |
| 94 | (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ))\r |
| 95 | \r |
| 96 | \r |
| 97 | We don't even have that anymore.\r |
| 98 | \r |
| 99 | \r |
| 100 | \r |
| 101 | ** Re: (Score:1)\r |
| 102 | (by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ))\r |
| 103 | \r |
| 104 | \r |
| 105 | PHRASING.\r |
| 106 | \r |
| 107 | \r |
| 108 | ** \r |
| 109 | \r |
| 110 | ** Re: (Score:1)\r |
| 111 | (by rojash ( 2567409 ))\r |
| 112 | \r |
| 113 | \r |
| 114 | i really wanted to mod this up...but screw this mod point\r |
| 115 | rationing here\r |
| 116 | \r |
| 117 | \r |
| 118 | \r |
| 119 | ** \r |
| 120 | \r |
| 121 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r |
| 122 | (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ))\r |
| 123 | \r |
| 124 | \r |
| 125 | I honestly want the monopolies to pretend to strengthen\r |
| 126 | democracy.\r |
| 127 | \r |
| 128 | At this point in time,\r |
| 129 | Jeff Bezos owns Amazon and news papers and whatever else\r |
| 130 | Satya Nadella is in control of one of the biggest new\r |
| 131 | networks (which slashdotters will never see because it's\r |
| 132 | through Edge and Bing)\r |
| 133 | The Alphabet boys are in control of what almost everyone in\r |
| 134 | the world sees\r |
| 135 | Zuck and Dorsey could easily control a MASSIVE amount of what\r |
| 136 | everyone sees.\r |
| 137 | \r |
| 138 | What's also important is that most of these people seem to\r |
| 139 | have some inkling of wanti\r |
| 140 | \r |
| 141 | \r |
| 142 | ** Re: (Score:1)\r |
| 143 | (by Tyger-ZA ( 1886544 ))\r |
| 144 | \r |
| 145 | \r |
| 146 | It's correct that people want one point of access to a thing,\r |
| 147 | but nobody really wants a monopoly.\r |
| 148 | Assuming that one inevitably leads to the other is part of\r |
| 149 | the problem.\r |
| 150 | For example, with the video streaming sites, what we really\r |
| 151 | need is for them to collaborate on the platform (how you\r |
| 152 | login and watch shit) but compete on the content, meaning\r |
| 153 | that if you watch American Gods on the shared platform,\r |
| 154 | Amazon gets paid a share of your subscription, yet if you\r |
| 155 | watch Luke Cage on the same platform , Netflix gets paid\r |
| 156 | \r |
| 157 | \r |
| 158 | ** \r |
| 159 | \r |
| 160 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r |
| 161 | (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ))\r |
| 162 | \r |
| 163 | \r |
| 164 | Nope... that was back before we had mass real-time media and\r |
| 165 | we didn't fully understand how incredibly fucked the entire\r |
| 166 | government was.\r |
| 167 | \r |
| 168 | Then there was FDR who had the national radio and used it as\r |
| 169 | a weapon against others in Washington to give him\r |
| 170 | near-dictator powers. And then he completely without\r |
| 171 | foresight fucked up the political system in America by\r |
| 172 | imposing term limits which meant that politicians who have\r |
| 173 | real plans that take more than 8 years to accomplish...\r |
| 174 | won't.\r |
| 175 | \r |
| 176 | When we got TV and had 1-3 channels,\r |
| 177 | \r |
| 178 | \r |
| 179 | ** Professor? Professor? (Score:2)\r |
| 180 | (by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ))\r |
| 181 | \r |
| 182 | \r |
| 183 | Professor Who???\r |
| 184 | \r |
| 185 | ** Re: (Score:1)\r |
| 186 | (by antdude ( 79039 ))\r |
| 187 | \r |
| 188 | \r |
| 189 | Dr. Who! :D\r |
| 190 | \r |
| 191 | \r |
| 192 | ** How (Score:2)\r |
| 193 | (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ))\r |
| 194 | \r |
| 195 | \r |
| 196 | exactly do you break up a company who offers a service for free?\r |
| 197 | \r |
| 198 | ** Re: (Score:1)\r |
| 199 | (by pots ( 5047349 ))\r |
| 200 | \r |
| 201 | \r |
| 202 | Facebook's service is selling advertising. It is not free,\r |
| 203 | they are the #2 advertiser in the world right now (I think\r |
| 204 | that's right, but I'm not going to look it up).\r |
| 205 | \r |
| 206 | \r |
| 207 | ** Facebook, Google, and Apple need to be broken up. (Score:1)\r |
| 208 | (by WCMI92 ( 592436 ))\r |
| 209 | \r |
| 210 | \r |
| 211 | Microsoft has fallen below the zone they were once in.\r |
| 212 | \r |
| 213 | ** And how would that solve anything for consumers? (Score:3,\r |
| 214 | Interesting)\r |
| 215 | (by Anonymous Coward)\r |
| 216 | \r |
| 217 | \r |
| 218 | Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform\r |
| 219 | for users. The point of social platforms is to connect with\r |
| 220 | everyone else. Fragmentation means people needing to belong to\r |
| 221 | and check multiple platforms. Trying to force competition won't\r |
| 222 | solve any user issues. However, once Facebook stops providing a\r |
| 223 | compelling service, people will move on their own. The same as\r |
| 224 | they gave up MySpace and the same as they rejected Google+. The\r |
| 225 | market chose Facebook and will purge it when time comes.\r |
| 226 | The same with Google. There were plenty of entrenched search\r |
| 227 | services when Google came to be. Users chose it because it was\r |
| 228 | better. The old search services died because they didn't evolve.\r |
| 229 | If Google stops being the best fit option, people will go\r |
| 230 | somewhere else. They already have choices like Bing and Duck\r |
| 231 | Duck Go. As the service is free, people are choosing based on\r |
| 232 | functionality, not on price. Those that don't like the privacy\r |
| 233 | price of Google are opting for other services. You can't just\r |
| 234 | declare another search service is required and then force the\r |
| 235 | public to use it so that you can claim to have multiple services\r |
| 236 | with comparable market share.\r |
| 237 | If people were given a choice of all you can eat steak or beets\r |
| 238 | at equal cost, odds are that the majority would choose steak.\r |
| 239 | When you remove cost and scarcity, the premium option will\r |
| 240 | dominate. Digital services don't have scarcity like physical\r |
| 241 | products do. It's a different economy.\r |
| 242 | \r |
| 243 | ** Re: (Score:1)\r |
| 244 | (by pots ( 5047349 ))\r |
| 245 | \r |
| 246 | \r |
| 247 | > Facebook has grown because it offered the best social\r |
| 248 | > platform for users.\r |
| 249 | As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing\r |
| 250 | their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and\r |
| 251 | Instagram specifically.\r |
| 252 | \r |
| 253 | Your comment about the problem with fragmentation is an\r |
| 254 | example of why Facebook needs to be broken up by an outside\r |
| 255 | entity: they have a natural monopoly, since real competition\r |
| 256 | from startups would lead to fragmentation.\r |
| 257 | \r |
| 258 | I've said this before, but if the government came along and\r |
| 259 | broke up the company by splitting off Facebook's front-end\r |
| 260 | from its back-end, then we could\r |
| 261 | \r |
| 262 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r |
| 263 | (by jrumney ( 197329 ))\r |
| 264 | \r |
| 265 | \r |
| 266 | > As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing\r |
| 267 | > their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and\r |
| 268 | > Instagram specifically.\r |
| 269 | While this is true, so far they have not bought their\r |
| 270 | competitors to shut them down, or to raise prices to the\r |
| 271 | detriment of consumers. They are building a monopoly, but\r |
| 272 | so far, it is not harmful from an economic perspective,\r |
| 273 | and unfortunately I don't think anti-trust law is\r |
| 274 | concerned with privacy, so the case for breaking up\r |
| 275 | Facebook is not strong.\r |
| 276 | Apple would be a much juicier target, especially as they\r |
| 277 | recently became the world's first trillion dollar company\r |
| 278 | (with Amazon close behind). Splitting out the\r |
| 279 | \r |
| 280 | \r |
| 281 | \r |
| 282 | ** ok (Score:1)\r |
| 283 | (by Alyks ( 798644 ))\r |
| 284 | \r |
| 285 | \r |
| 286 | why do I care about a guy whose biggest contribution to this\r |
| 287 | subject is clever phrasing?\r |
| 288 | \r |
| 289 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r |
| 290 | (by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ))\r |
| 291 | \r |
| 292 | \r |
| 293 | > Are you with me Doctor Wu\r |
| 294 | > Are you really just a shadow\r |
| 295 | > Of the man that I once knew\r |
| 296 | > Are you crazy are you high\r |
| 297 | > Or just an ordinary guy\r |
| 298 | > Have you done all you can do\r |
| 299 | > Are you with me Doctor\r |
| 300 | \r |
| 301 | \r |
| 302 | ** We need open platforms (Score:1)\r |
| 303 | (by Karmashock ( 2415832 ))\r |
| 304 | \r |
| 305 | \r |
| 306 | These proprietary social networks are bad for free speech.\r |
| 307 | I have no problem with facebook, google, twitter, except that\r |
| 308 | they concentrate the internet in the hands of a few large\r |
| 309 | companies.\r |
| 310 | We need open platforms like HTML, TCP/IP, Email, Newsgroups, etc.\r |
| 311 | All old retrograde stuff according to the children. But there\r |
| 312 | isn't one of these social networks that couldn't be made P2P or\r |
| 313 | something that anyone could set up their own personal server for\r |
| 314 | that interlinked with each other.\r |
| 315 | A 20 dollar raspberry pi could host\r |
| 316 | \r |
| 317 | ** Not a monopoly or required... (Score:2)\r |
| 318 | (by Archfeld ( 6757 ))\r |
| 319 | \r |
| 320 | \r |
| 321 | I don't like Facebook either but its not a monopoly, nor is it\r |
| 322 | required in anyway to use the internet. Anyone could come up\r |
| 323 | with the next social network thing anytime now or you can just\r |
| 324 | NOT use Facebook. It isn't like an OS or a browser that is\r |
| 325 | necessary for use or access to anything. Facebook or Twitter are\r |
| 326 | tools of convenience and can easily be done without. If you\r |
| 327 | don't like what is being said filter it out or don't use either.\r |
| 328 | \r |
| 329 | ** We had the chance... (Score:2)\r |
| 330 | (by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ))\r |
| 331 | \r |
| 332 | \r |
| 333 | and blew it...with Microsoft. They should have been broken up\r |
| 334 | just like Standard Oil. But they were not and that just created\r |
| 335 | a precedent for companies like Facebook and Amazon and Google.\r |
| 336 | We reap what we sow.\r |
| 337 | \r |
| 338 | ** Why I posted this (Score:2)\r |
| 339 | (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ))\r |
| 340 | \r |
| 341 | \r |
| 342 | Look, I don't get my news from Facebook. Local, National, World.\r |
| 343 | Be it political or otherwise. I don't give a shit about who they\r |
| 344 | ban, and who they don't. I don't give a shit on who they censor,\r |
| 345 | and who they don't. Just don't care. Face book has purchased the\r |
| 346 | following which was competition. At least they didn't kill them.\r |
| 347 | They own Tinder, dating. They own Instagram, another form of\r |
| 348 | social media. And a couple others were mentioned in the article.\r |
| 349 | My profile was not used by that company that tried t\r |
| 350 | \r |
| 351 | ** What the f____ (Score:2)\r |
| 352 | (by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ))\r |
| 353 | \r |
| 354 | \r |
| 355 | "Look over here! See? We're thinking about maybe eventually\r |
| 356 | doing something someday! (Pay no attention to the massive\r |
| 357 | personal data collection feast that\r |
| 358 | every-single-damn-corporation and government in the entire\r |
| 359 | bloody world is gorging on behind the curtain)"\r |
| 360 | WHY do people give so many shits for instabook and facegram?\r |
| 361 | It's not something anybody actually needs to begin with. For\r |
| 362 | fucks sake. Big tech is not "The internet"... in fact, the case\r |
| 363 | has been made that these companies are big evil time eaters that\r |
| 364 | p\r |
| 365 | \r |
| 366 | ** Re: (Score:2)\r |
| 367 | (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ))\r |
| 368 | \r |
| 369 | \r |
| 370 | Hell, let's start with the fact that before Facebook, what\r |
| 371 | ever. Credit cards are tracked, companies record everything\r |
| 372 | you purchase from them. Those company cards on your key\r |
| 373 | change to save 3 cents. That is all tracked. And it is all\r |
| 374 | shared via companies selling the information\r |
| 375 | \r |
| 376 | \r |
| 377 | \r |