X-Git-Url: http://git.nikiroo.be/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=test%2Fexpected%2FSLASHDOT%2F0102640274;fp=test%2Fexpected%2FSLASHDOT%2F0102640274;h=2d9f868ac5e3df57d73dc14a1f46bce99f5ce70c;hb=299a08f325f3de71e191b17b16a120d1714e3d7c;hp=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000;hpb=1aaa6ba3686a5a14f2957b6b8d02ffc0903f6832;p=gofetch.git diff --git a/test/expected/SLASHDOT/0102640274 b/test/expected/SLASHDOT/0102640274 new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2d9f868 --- /dev/null +++ b/test/expected/SLASHDOT/0102640274 @@ -0,0 +1,377 @@ + PROFESSOR WHO COINED TERM 'NET NEUTRALITY' THINKS IT'S TIME TO + BREAK UP FACEBOOK (THEVERGE.COM) + + Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (BeauHD) + from the easier-said-than-done dept. + + 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 + o Source link: https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust + + + pgmrdlm shares a report from The Verge: Best known for coining + the phrase "net neutrality" and his book The Master Switch: + The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Wu has a new book + coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust + in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a + return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of + Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and + other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they + get bigger and bigger. "We live in America, which has a strong + and proud tradition of breaking up companies that are too big + for inefficient reasons," Wu told me on this week's Vergecast. + "We need to reverse this idea that it's not an American + tradition. We've broken up dozens of companies." "I think if + you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and + Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions + have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number + of reasons," says Wu. And breaking up the company wouldn't be + hard, he says. "What would be the harm? You'll have three + competitors. It's not 'Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp + and Instagram, well then the whole world's going to fall + apart.' It would be like 'Okay, now you have some companies + actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.'" + Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like + Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law, + suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major rethinking of + how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant + platform companies give their products away for free, and the + ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems + to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that we all think + seriously about the conditions that create innovation. "I + think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I + think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector," says Wu. + + + ** Safe Harbor (Score:5, Interesting) + (by Kunedog ( 1033226 )) + + + There's a simpler way: + [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] + + If they want to curate content according to their political + bias, then treat them like the politically-biased media outlets + they are, legally liable for the content they host, instead of + platforms under "safe harbor" protections. If they want to + continue to be treated like platforms, then they can keep their + hands off their political opponents' speech. + + + + + [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMLLlnRCBqg + + ** Re: (Score:2) + (by HornWumpus ( 783565 )) + + + They're already not 'common carriers' so they really didn't + lose anything by curating. + The solution is to reestablish 'common carrier' protections + for those web forums that deserve it. + + + ** Re:Safe Harbor (Score:4, Interesting) + (by pots ( 5047349 )) + + + I didn't read the article, but the summary has nothing to do + with what you're talking about. The issue at hand is + monopolies and the consequent stifling of innovation and lack + of competitive pressure, that being the only thing which + makes our economy work for people instead of against them. + + + ** Holy Fuck (Score:1) + (by Anonymous Coward) + + + Why do I bother coming here anymore? + + ** + + ** Re: (Score:3) + (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )) + + + We don't even have that anymore. + + + + ** Re: (Score:1) + (by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 )) + + + PHRASING. + + + ** + + ** Re: (Score:1) + (by rojash ( 2567409 )) + + + i really wanted to mod this up...but screw this mod point + rationing here + + + + ** + + ** Re: (Score:2) + (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 )) + + + I honestly want the monopolies to pretend to strengthen + democracy. + + At this point in time, + Jeff Bezos owns Amazon and news papers and whatever else + Satya Nadella is in control of one of the biggest new + networks (which slashdotters will never see because it's + through Edge and Bing) + The Alphabet boys are in control of what almost everyone in + the world sees + Zuck and Dorsey could easily control a MASSIVE amount of what + everyone sees. + + What's also important is that most of these people seem to + have some inkling of wanti + + + ** Re: (Score:1) + (by Tyger-ZA ( 1886544 )) + + + It's correct that people want one point of access to a thing, + but nobody really wants a monopoly. + Assuming that one inevitably leads to the other is part of + the problem. + For example, with the video streaming sites, what we really + need is for them to collaborate on the platform (how you + login and watch shit) but compete on the content, meaning + that if you watch American Gods on the shared platform, + Amazon gets paid a share of your subscription, yet if you + watch Luke Cage on the same platform , Netflix gets paid + + + ** + + ** Re: (Score:2) + (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 )) + + + Nope... that was back before we had mass real-time media and + we didn't fully understand how incredibly fucked the entire + government was. + + Then there was FDR who had the national radio and used it as + a weapon against others in Washington to give him + near-dictator powers. And then he completely without + foresight fucked up the political system in America by + imposing term limits which meant that politicians who have + real plans that take more than 8 years to accomplish... + won't. + + When we got TV and had 1-3 channels, + + + ** Professor? Professor? (Score:2) + (by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 )) + + + Professor Who??? + + ** Re: (Score:1) + (by antdude ( 79039 )) + + + Dr. Who! :D + + + ** How (Score:2) + (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )) + + + exactly do you break up a company who offers a service for free? + + ** Re: (Score:1) + (by pots ( 5047349 )) + + + Facebook's service is selling advertising. It is not free, + they are the #2 advertiser in the world right now (I think + that's right, but I'm not going to look it up). + + + ** Facebook, Google, and Apple need to be broken up. (Score:1) + (by WCMI92 ( 592436 )) + + + Microsoft has fallen below the zone they were once in. + + ** And how would that solve anything for consumers? (Score:3, + Interesting) + (by Anonymous Coward) + + + Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform + for users. The point of social platforms is to connect with + everyone else. Fragmentation means people needing to belong to + and check multiple platforms. Trying to force competition won't + solve any user issues. However, once Facebook stops providing a + compelling service, people will move on their own. The same as + they gave up MySpace and the same as they rejected Google+. The + market chose Facebook and will purge it when time comes. + The same with Google. There were plenty of entrenched search + services when Google came to be. Users chose it because it was + better. The old search services died because they didn't evolve. + If Google stops being the best fit option, people will go + somewhere else. They already have choices like Bing and Duck + Duck Go. As the service is free, people are choosing based on + functionality, not on price. Those that don't like the privacy + price of Google are opting for other services. You can't just + declare another search service is required and then force the + public to use it so that you can claim to have multiple services + with comparable market share. + If people were given a choice of all you can eat steak or beets + at equal cost, odds are that the majority would choose steak. + When you remove cost and scarcity, the premium option will + dominate. Digital services don't have scarcity like physical + products do. It's a different economy. + + ** Re: (Score:1) + (by pots ( 5047349 )) + + + > Facebook has grown because it offered the best social + > platform for users. + As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing + their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and + Instagram specifically. + + Your comment about the problem with fragmentation is an + example of why Facebook needs to be broken up by an outside + entity: they have a natural monopoly, since real competition + from startups would lead to fragmentation. + + I've said this before, but if the government came along and + broke up the company by splitting off Facebook's front-end + from its back-end, then we could + + ** Re: (Score:2) + (by jrumney ( 197329 )) + + + > As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing + > their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and + > Instagram specifically. + While this is true, so far they have not bought their + competitors to shut them down, or to raise prices to the + detriment of consumers. They are building a monopoly, but + so far, it is not harmful from an economic perspective, + and unfortunately I don't think anti-trust law is + concerned with privacy, so the case for breaking up + Facebook is not strong. + Apple would be a much juicier target, especially as they + recently became the world's first trillion dollar company + (with Amazon close behind). Splitting out the + + + + ** ok (Score:1) + (by Alyks ( 798644 )) + + + why do I care about a guy whose biggest contribution to this + subject is clever phrasing? + + ** Re: (Score:2) + (by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 )) + + + > Are you with me Doctor Wu + > Are you really just a shadow + > Of the man that I once knew + > Are you crazy are you high + > Or just an ordinary guy + > Have you done all you can do + > Are you with me Doctor + + + ** We need open platforms (Score:1) + (by Karmashock ( 2415832 )) + + + These proprietary social networks are bad for free speech. + I have no problem with facebook, google, twitter, except that + they concentrate the internet in the hands of a few large + companies. + We need open platforms like HTML, TCP/IP, Email, Newsgroups, etc. + All old retrograde stuff according to the children. But there + isn't one of these social networks that couldn't be made P2P or + something that anyone could set up their own personal server for + that interlinked with each other. + A 20 dollar raspberry pi could host + + ** Not a monopoly or required... (Score:2) + (by Archfeld ( 6757 )) + + + I don't like Facebook either but its not a monopoly, nor is it + required in anyway to use the internet. Anyone could come up + with the next social network thing anytime now or you can just + NOT use Facebook. It isn't like an OS or a browser that is + necessary for use or access to anything. Facebook or Twitter are + tools of convenience and can easily be done without. If you + don't like what is being said filter it out or don't use either. + + ** We had the chance... (Score:2) + (by erp_consultant ( 2614861 )) + + + and blew it...with Microsoft. They should have been broken up + just like Standard Oil. But they were not and that just created + a precedent for companies like Facebook and Amazon and Google. + We reap what we sow. + + ** Why I posted this (Score:2) + (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 )) + + + Look, I don't get my news from Facebook. Local, National, World. + Be it political or otherwise. I don't give a shit about who they + ban, and who they don't. I don't give a shit on who they censor, + and who they don't. Just don't care. Face book has purchased the + following which was competition. At least they didn't kill them. + They own Tinder, dating. They own Instagram, another form of + social media. And a couple others were mentioned in the article. + My profile was not used by that company that tried t + + ** What the f____ (Score:2) + (by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 )) + + + "Look over here! See? We're thinking about maybe eventually + doing something someday! (Pay no attention to the massive + personal data collection feast that + every-single-damn-corporation and government in the entire + bloody world is gorging on behind the curtain)" + WHY do people give so many shits for instabook and facegram? + It's not something anybody actually needs to begin with. For + fucks sake. Big tech is not "The internet"... in fact, the case + has been made that these companies are big evil time eaters that + p + + ** Re: (Score:2) + (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 )) + + + Hell, let's start with the fact that before Facebook, what + ever. Credit cards are tracked, companies record everything + you purchase from them. Those company cards on your key + change to save 3 cents. That is all tracked. And it is all + shared via companies selling the information + + +