Fix Redit changing IDs
[gofetch.git] / test / expected / SLASHDOT / 0102640274
1 PROFESSOR WHO COINED TERM 'NET NEUTRALITY' THINKS IT'S TIME TO
2 BREAK UP FACEBOOK (THEVERGE.COM)
3
4 Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (BeauHD)
5 from the easier-said-than-done dept.
6
7 o Reference: 0102640274
8 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
9 o Source link: https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust
10
11
12 [1]pgmrdlm shares a report from The Verge:
13
14 > Best known for coining the phrase "net neutrality" and his
15 book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information
16 Empires, Wu has a new book coming out in November called
17 [2]The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age . In
18 it, he argues compellingly for a return to aggressive
19 antitrust enforcement in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, saying
20 that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other huge tech companies
21 [3]are a threat to democracy as they get bigger and bigger .
22 "We live in America, which has a strong and proud tradition of
23 breaking up companies that are too big for inefficient
24 reasons," Wu told me on this week's Vergecast. "We need to
25 reverse this idea that it's not an American tradition. We've
26 broken up dozens of companies."
27
28 >
29
30 > "I think if you took a hard look at the acquisition of
31 WhatsApp and Instagram, the argument that the effects of those
32 acquisitions have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove
33 for a number of reasons," says Wu. And breaking up the company
34 wouldn't be hard, he says. "What would be the harm? You'll
35 have three competitors. It's not 'Oh my god, if you get rid of
36 WhatsApp and Instagram, well then the whole world's going to
37 fall apart.' It would be like 'Okay, now you have some
38 companies actually trying to offer you an alternative to
39 Facebook.'" Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech
40 companies like Google and Amazon) could be simple under the
41 current law, suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major
42 rethinking of how antitrust law should work in a world where
43 the giant platform companies give their products away for
44 free, and the ability for the government to restrict corporate
45 power seems to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that
46 we all think seriously about the conditions that create
47 innovation. "I think everyone's steering way away from the
48 monopolies, and I think it's hurting innovation in the tech
49 sector," says Wu.
50
51
52
53 [1] https://slashdot.org/~pgmrdlm
54
55 [2] https://www.amazon.com/Curse-Bigness-Antitrust-New-Gilded/-
56 dp/0999745468
57
58 [3] https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-
59 regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust
60
61
62 ** Safe Harbor (Score:5, Interesting)
63 (by Kunedog ( 1033226 ))
64
65
66 There's a simpler way:
67 [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
68
69 If they want to curate content according to their political
70 bias, then treat them like the politically-biased media outlets
71 they are, legally liable for the content they host, instead of
72 platforms under "safe harbor" protections. If they want to
73 continue to be treated like platforms, then they can keep their
74 hands off their political opponents' speech.
75
76
77
78
79 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMLLlnRCBqg
80
81 ** Re: (Score:2)
82 (by HornWumpus ( 783565 ))
83
84
85 They're already not 'common carriers' so they really didn't
86 lose anything by curating.
87 The solution is to reestablish 'common carrier' protections
88 for those web forums that deserve it.
89
90
91 ** Re:Safe Harbor (Score:4, Interesting)
92 (by pots ( 5047349 ))
93
94
95 I didn't read the article, but the summary has nothing to do
96 with what you're talking about. The issue at hand is
97 monopolies and the consequent stifling of innovation and lack
98 of competitive pressure, that being the only thing which
99 makes our economy work for people instead of against them.
100
101
102 ** Holy Fuck (Score:1)
103 (by Anonymous Coward)
104
105
106 Why do I bother coming here anymore?
107
108 **
109
110 ** Re: (Score:3)
111 (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ))
112
113
114 We don't even have that anymore.
115
116
117
118 ** Re: (Score:1)
119 (by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ))
120
121
122 PHRASING.
123
124
125 **
126
127 ** Re: (Score:1)
128 (by rojash ( 2567409 ))
129
130
131 i really wanted to mod this up...but screw this mod point
132 rationing here
133
134
135
136 **
137
138 ** Re: (Score:2)
139 (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ))
140
141
142 I honestly want the monopolies to pretend to strengthen
143 democracy.
144
145 At this point in time,
146 Jeff Bezos owns Amazon and news papers and whatever else
147 Satya Nadella is in control of one of the biggest new
148 networks (which slashdotters will never see because it's
149 through Edge and Bing)
150 The Alphabet boys are in control of what almost everyone in
151 the world sees
152 Zuck and Dorsey could easily control a MASSIVE amount of what
153 everyone sees.
154
155 What's also important is that most of these people seem to
156 have some inkling of wanti
157
158
159 ** Re: (Score:1)
160 (by Tyger-ZA ( 1886544 ))
161
162
163 It's correct that people want one point of access to a thing,
164 but nobody really wants a monopoly.
165 Assuming that one inevitably leads to the other is part of
166 the problem.
167 For example, with the video streaming sites, what we really
168 need is for them to collaborate on the platform (how you
169 login and watch shit) but compete on the content, meaning
170 that if you watch American Gods on the shared platform,
171 Amazon gets paid a share of your subscription, yet if you
172 watch Luke Cage on the same platform , Netflix gets paid
173
174
175 **
176
177 ** Re: (Score:2)
178 (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ))
179
180
181 Nope... that was back before we had mass real-time media and
182 we didn't fully understand how incredibly fucked the entire
183 government was.
184
185 Then there was FDR who had the national radio and used it as
186 a weapon against others in Washington to give him
187 near-dictator powers. And then he completely without
188 foresight fucked up the political system in America by
189 imposing term limits which meant that politicians who have
190 real plans that take more than 8 years to accomplish...
191 won't.
192
193 When we got TV and had 1-3 channels,
194
195
196 ** Professor? Professor? (Score:2)
197 (by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ))
198
199
200 Professor Who???
201
202 ** Re: (Score:1)
203 (by antdude ( 79039 ))
204
205
206 Dr. Who! :D
207
208
209 ** How (Score:2)
210 (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ))
211
212
213 exactly do you break up a company who offers a service for free?
214
215 ** Re: (Score:1)
216 (by pots ( 5047349 ))
217
218
219 Facebook's service is selling advertising. It is not free,
220 they are the #2 advertiser in the world right now (I think
221 that's right, but I'm not going to look it up).
222
223
224 ** Facebook, Google, and Apple need to be broken up. (Score:1)
225 (by WCMI92 ( 592436 ))
226
227
228 Microsoft has fallen below the zone they were once in.
229
230 ** And how would that solve anything for consumers? (Score:3,
231 Interesting)
232 (by Anonymous Coward)
233
234
235 Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform
236 for users. The point of social platforms is to connect with
237 everyone else. Fragmentation means people needing to belong to
238 and check multiple platforms. Trying to force competition won't
239 solve any user issues. However, once Facebook stops providing a
240 compelling service, people will move on their own. The same as
241 they gave up MySpace and the same as they rejected Google+. The
242 market chose Facebook and will purge it when time comes.
243 The same with Google. There were plenty of entrenched search
244 services when Google came to be. Users chose it because it was
245 better. The old search services died because they didn't evolve.
246 If Google stops being the best fit option, people will go
247 somewhere else. They already have choices like Bing and Duck
248 Duck Go. As the service is free, people are choosing based on
249 functionality, not on price. Those that don't like the privacy
250 price of Google are opting for other services. You can't just
251 declare another search service is required and then force the
252 public to use it so that you can claim to have multiple services
253 with comparable market share.
254 If people were given a choice of all you can eat steak or beets
255 at equal cost, odds are that the majority would choose steak.
256 When you remove cost and scarcity, the premium option will
257 dominate. Digital services don't have scarcity like physical
258 products do. It's a different economy.
259
260 ** Re: (Score:1)
261 (by pots ( 5047349 ))
262
263
264 > Facebook has grown because it offered the best social
265 > platform for users.
266 As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing
267 their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and
268 Instagram specifically.
269
270 Your comment about the problem with fragmentation is an
271 example of why Facebook needs to be broken up by an outside
272 entity: they have a natural monopoly, since real competition
273 from startups would lead to fragmentation.
274
275 I've said this before, but if the government came along and
276 broke up the company by splitting off Facebook's front-end
277 from its back-end, then we could
278
279 ** Re: (Score:2)
280 (by jrumney ( 197329 ))
281
282
283 > As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing
284 > their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and
285 > Instagram specifically.
286 While this is true, so far they have not bought their
287 competitors to shut them down, or to raise prices to the
288 detriment of consumers. They are building a monopoly, but
289 so far, it is not harmful from an economic perspective,
290 and unfortunately I don't think anti-trust law is
291 concerned with privacy, so the case for breaking up
292 Facebook is not strong.
293 Apple would be a much juicier target, especially as they
294 recently became the world's first trillion dollar company
295 (with Amazon close behind). Splitting out the
296
297
298
299 ** ok (Score:1)
300 (by Alyks ( 798644 ))
301
302
303 why do I care about a guy whose biggest contribution to this
304 subject is clever phrasing?
305
306 ** Re: (Score:2)
307 (by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ))
308
309
310 > Are you with me Doctor Wu
311 > Are you really just a shadow
312 > Of the man that I once knew
313 > Are you crazy are you high
314 > Or just an ordinary guy
315 > Have you done all you can do
316 > Are you with me Doctor
317
318
319 ** We need open platforms (Score:1)
320 (by Karmashock ( 2415832 ))
321
322
323 These proprietary social networks are bad for free speech.
324 I have no problem with facebook, google, twitter, except that
325 they concentrate the internet in the hands of a few large
326 companies.
327 We need open platforms like HTML, TCP/IP, Email, Newsgroups, etc.
328 All old retrograde stuff according to the children. But there
329 isn't one of these social networks that couldn't be made P2P or
330 something that anyone could set up their own personal server for
331 that interlinked with each other.
332 A 20 dollar raspberry pi could host
333
334 ** Not a monopoly or required... (Score:2)
335 (by Archfeld ( 6757 ))
336
337
338 I don't like Facebook either but its not a monopoly, nor is it
339 required in anyway to use the internet. Anyone could come up
340 with the next social network thing anytime now or you can just
341 NOT use Facebook. It isn't like an OS or a browser that is
342 necessary for use or access to anything. Facebook or Twitter are
343 tools of convenience and can easily be done without. If you
344 don't like what is being said filter it out or don't use either.
345
346 ** We had the chance... (Score:2)
347 (by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ))
348
349
350 and blew it...with Microsoft. They should have been broken up
351 just like Standard Oil. But they were not and that just created
352 a precedent for companies like Facebook and Amazon and Google.
353 We reap what we sow.
354
355 ** Why I posted this (Score:2)
356 (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ))
357
358
359 Look, I don't get my news from Facebook. Local, National, World.
360 Be it political or otherwise. I don't give a shit about who they
361 ban, and who they don't. I don't give a shit on who they censor,
362 and who they don't. Just don't care. Face book has purchased the
363 following which was competition. At least they didn't kill them.
364 They own Tinder, dating. They own Instagram, another form of
365 social media. And a couple others were mentioned in the article.
366 My profile was not used by that company that tried t
367
368 ** What the f____ (Score:2)
369 (by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ))
370
371
372 "Look over here! See? We're thinking about maybe eventually
373 doing something someday! (Pay no attention to the massive
374 personal data collection feast that
375 every-single-damn-corporation and government in the entire
376 bloody world is gorging on behind the curtain)"
377 WHY do people give so many shits for instabook and facegram?
378 It's not something anybody actually needs to begin with. For
379 fucks sake. Big tech is not "The internet"... in fact, the case
380 has been made that these companies are big evil time eaters that
381 p
382
383 ** Re: (Score:2)
384 (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ))
385
386
387 Hell, let's start with the fact that before Facebook, what
388 ever. Credit cards are tracked, companies record everything
389 you purchase from them. Those company cards on your key
390 change to save 3 cents. That is all tracked. And it is all
391 shared via companies selling the information
392
393
394