Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
299a08f3 NR |
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 |