Fix layout issues in getContent() text

[gofetch.git] / test / expected / SLASHDOT / 0102640274

   PROFESSOR WHO COINED TERM 'NET NEUTRALITY' THINKS IT'S TIME TO  \r
                  BREAK UP FACEBOOK (THEVERGE.COM)                 \r
\r
  Thursday September 06, 2018 @11:30PM (BeauHD)\r
  from the easier-said-than-done dept.\r
\r
  o Reference: 0102640274\r
  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
  o Source link: https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust\r
\r
\r
    [1]pgmrdlm shares a report from The Verge:\r
    \r
    >  Best  known  for coining the phrase "net neutrality" and his\r
    book  The  Master  Switch:  The  Rise  and  Fall of Information\r
    Empires,  Wu  has  a  new  book  coming  out in November called\r
    [2]The  Curse  of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age . In\r
    it,   he   argues  compellingly  for  a  return  to  aggressive\r
    antitrust  enforcement  in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, saying\r
    that  Google,  Facebook,  Amazon, and other huge tech companies\r
    [3]are  a  threat  to democracy as they get bigger and bigger .\r
    "We  live in America, which has a strong and proud tradition of\r
    breaking   up  companies  that  are  too  big  for  inefficient\r
    reasons,"  Wu  told  me  on  this week's Vergecast. "We need to\r
    reverse  this  idea  that it's not an American tradition. We've\r
    broken up dozens of companies."\r
    \r
    >\r
    \r
    >  "I  think  if  you  took  a  hard look at the acquisition of\r
    WhatsApp  and Instagram, the argument that the effects of those\r
    acquisitions  have  been anticompetitive would be easy to prove\r
    for  a number of reasons," says Wu. And breaking up the company\r
    wouldn't  be  hard,  he  says.  "What would be the harm? You'll\r
    have  three competitors. It's not 'Oh my god, if you get rid of\r
    WhatsApp  and  Instagram,  well then the whole world's going to\r
    fall  apart.'  It  would  be  like  'Okay,  now  you  have some\r
    companies  actually  trying  to  offer  you  an  alternative to\r
    Facebook.'"   Breaking   up   Facebook  (and  other  huge  tech\r
    companies  like  Google  and  Amazon) could be simple under the\r
    current  law,  suggests  Wu.  But it could also lead to a major\r
    rethinking  of  how  antitrust law should work in a world where\r
    the  giant  platform  companies  give  their  products away for\r
    free,  and the ability for the government to restrict corporate\r
    power  seems  to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that\r
    we  all  think  seriously  about  the  conditions  that  create\r
    innovation.  "I  think  everyone's  steering  way away from the\r
    monopolies,  and  I  think  it's hurting innovation in the tech\r
    sector," says Wu.\r
    \r
    \r
    \r
    [1] https://slashdot.org/~pgmrdlm\r
    \r
    [2] https://www.amazon.com/Curse-Bigness-Antitrust-New-Gilded/-\r
    dp/0999745468\r
    \r
    [3] https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-\r
    regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust\r
\r
\r
  ** Safe Harbor (Score:5, Interesting)\r
     (by Kunedog ( 1033226 ))\r
\r
     \r
     There's a simpler way:\r
     [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]\r
     \r
     If they want to curate content according to their political\r
     bias, then treat them like the politically-biased media outlets\r
     they are, legally liable for the content they host, instead of\r
     platforms under "safe harbor" protections. If they want to\r
     continue to be treated like platforms, then they can keep their\r
     hands off their political opponents' speech.\r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     \r
     [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMLLlnRCBqg\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by HornWumpus ( 783565 ))\r
\r
        \r
        They're already not 'common carriers' so they really didn't\r
        lose anything by curating.\r
        The solution is to reestablish 'common carrier' protections\r
        for those web forums that deserve it.\r
\r
\r
     ** Re:Safe Harbor (Score:4, Interesting)\r
        (by pots ( 5047349 ))\r
\r
        \r
        I didn't read the article, but the summary has nothing to do\r
        with what you're talking about. The issue at hand is\r
        monopolies and the consequent stifling of innovation and lack\r
        of competitive pressure, that being the only thing which\r
        makes our economy work for people instead of against them.\r
\r
\r
  ** Holy Fuck (Score:1)\r
     (by Anonymous Coward)\r
\r
     \r
     Why do I bother coming here anymore?\r
\r
     ** \r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:3)\r
           (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ))\r
\r
           \r
           We don't even have that anymore.\r
\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:1)\r
        (by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ))\r
\r
        \r
        PHRASING.\r
\r
\r
     ** \r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:1)\r
           (by rojash ( 2567409 ))\r
\r
           \r
           i really wanted to mod this up...but screw this mod point\r
           rationing here\r
\r
\r
\r
  ** \r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ))\r
\r
        \r
        I honestly want the monopolies to pretend to strengthen\r
        democracy.\r
        \r
        At this point in time,\r
        Jeff Bezos owns Amazon and news papers and whatever else\r
        Satya Nadella is in control of one of the biggest new\r
        networks (which slashdotters will never see because it's\r
        through Edge and Bing)\r
        The Alphabet boys are in control of what almost everyone in\r
        the world sees\r
        Zuck and Dorsey could easily control a MASSIVE amount of what\r
        everyone sees.\r
        \r
        What's also important is that most of these people seem to\r
        have some inkling of wanti\r
\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:1)\r
        (by Tyger-ZA ( 1886544 ))\r
\r
        \r
        It's correct that people want one point of access to a thing,\r
        but nobody really wants a monopoly.\r
        Assuming that one inevitably leads to the other is part of\r
        the problem.\r
        For example, with the video streaming sites, what we really\r
        need is for them to collaborate on the platform (how you\r
        login and watch shit) but compete on the content, meaning\r
        that if you watch American Gods on the shared platform,\r
        Amazon gets paid a share of your subscription, yet if you\r
        watch Luke Cage on the same platform , Netflix gets paid\r
\r
\r
  ** \r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Nope... that was back before we had mass real-time media and\r
        we didn't fully understand how incredibly fucked the entire\r
        government was.\r
        \r
        Then there was FDR who had the national radio and used it as\r
        a weapon against others in Washington to give him\r
        near-dictator powers. And then he completely without\r
        foresight fucked up the political system in America by\r
        imposing term limits which meant that politicians who have\r
        real plans that take more than 8 years to accomplish...\r
        won't.\r
        \r
        When we got TV and had 1-3 channels,\r
\r
\r
  ** Professor? Professor? (Score:2)\r
     (by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ))\r
\r
     \r
     Professor Who???\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:1)\r
        (by antdude ( 79039 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Dr. Who!  :D\r
\r
\r
  ** How (Score:2)\r
     (by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ))\r
\r
     \r
     exactly do you break up a company who offers a service for free?\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:1)\r
        (by pots ( 5047349 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Facebook's service is selling advertising. It is not free,\r
        they are the #2 advertiser in the world right now (I think\r
        that's right, but I'm not going to look it up).\r
\r
\r
  ** Facebook, Google, and Apple need to be broken up. (Score:1)\r
     (by WCMI92 ( 592436 ))\r
\r
     \r
     Microsoft has fallen below the zone they were once in.\r
\r
  ** And how would that solve anything for consumers? (Score:3,\r
     Interesting)\r
     (by Anonymous Coward)\r
\r
     \r
     Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform\r
     for users. The point of social platforms is to connect with\r
     everyone else. Fragmentation means people needing to belong to\r
     and check multiple platforms. Trying to force competition won't\r
     solve any user issues. However, once Facebook stops providing a\r
     compelling service, people will move on their own. The same as\r
     they gave up MySpace and the same as they rejected Google+. The\r
     market chose Facebook and will purge it when time comes.\r
     The same with Google. There were plenty of entrenched search\r
     services when Google came to be. Users chose it because it was\r
     better. The old search services died because they didn't evolve.\r
     If Google stops being the best fit option, people will go\r
     somewhere else. They already have choices like Bing and Duck\r
     Duck Go. As the service is free, people are choosing based on\r
     functionality, not on price. Those that don't like the privacy\r
     price of Google are opting for other services. You can't just\r
     declare another search service is required and then force the\r
     public to use it so that you can claim to have multiple services\r
     with comparable market share.\r
     If people were given a choice of all you can eat steak or beets\r
     at equal cost, odds are that the majority would choose steak.\r
     When you remove cost and scarcity, the premium option will\r
     dominate. Digital services don't have scarcity like physical\r
     products do. It's a different economy.\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:1)\r
        (by pots ( 5047349 ))\r
\r
        \r
        > Facebook has grown because it offered the best social\r
        > platform for users.\r
        As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing\r
        their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and\r
        Instagram specifically.\r
        \r
        Your comment about the problem with fragmentation is an\r
        example of why Facebook needs to be broken up by an outside\r
        entity: they have a natural monopoly, since real competition\r
        from startups would lead to fragmentation.\r
        \r
        I've said this before, but if the government came along and\r
        broke up the company by splitting off Facebook's front-end\r
        from its back-end, then we could\r
\r
        ** Re: (Score:2)\r
           (by jrumney ( 197329 ))\r
\r
           \r
           > As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing\r
           > their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and\r
           > Instagram specifically.\r
           While this is true, so far they have not bought their\r
           competitors to shut them down, or to raise prices to the\r
           detriment of consumers. They are building a monopoly, but\r
           so far, it is not harmful from an economic perspective,\r
           and unfortunately I don't think anti-trust law is\r
           concerned with privacy, so the case for breaking up\r
           Facebook is not strong.\r
           Apple would be a much juicier target, especially as they\r
           recently became the world's first trillion dollar company\r
           (with Amazon close behind). Splitting out the\r
\r
\r
\r
  ** ok (Score:1)\r
     (by Alyks ( 798644 ))\r
\r
     \r
     why do I care about a guy whose biggest contribution to this\r
     subject is clever phrasing?\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ))\r
\r
        \r
        > Are you with me Doctor Wu\r
        > Are you really just a shadow\r
        > Of the man that I once knew\r
        > Are you crazy are you high\r
        > Or just an ordinary guy\r
        > Have you done all you can do\r
        > Are you with me Doctor\r
\r
\r
  ** We need open platforms (Score:1)\r
     (by Karmashock ( 2415832 ))\r
\r
     \r
     These proprietary social networks are bad for free speech.\r
     I have no problem with facebook, google, twitter, except that\r
     they concentrate the internet in the hands of a few large\r
     companies.\r
     We need open platforms like HTML, TCP/IP, Email, Newsgroups, etc.\r
     All old retrograde stuff according to the children. But there\r
     isn't one of these social networks that couldn't be made P2P or\r
     something that anyone could set up their own personal server for\r
     that interlinked with each other.\r
     A 20 dollar raspberry pi could host\r
\r
  ** Not a monopoly or required... (Score:2)\r
     (by Archfeld ( 6757 ))\r
\r
     \r
     I don't like Facebook either but its not a monopoly, nor is it\r
     required in anyway to use the internet. Anyone could come up\r
     with the next social network thing anytime now or you can just\r
     NOT use Facebook. It isn't like an OS or a browser that is\r
     necessary for use or access to anything. Facebook or Twitter are\r
     tools of convenience and can easily be done without. If you\r
     don't like what is being said filter it out or don't use either.\r
\r
  ** We had the chance... (Score:2)\r
     (by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ))\r
\r
     \r
     and blew it...with Microsoft. They should have been broken up\r
     just like Standard Oil. But they were not and that just created\r
     a precedent for companies like Facebook and Amazon and Google.\r
     We reap what we sow.\r
\r
  ** Why I posted this (Score:2)\r
     (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ))\r
\r
     \r
     Look, I don't get my news from Facebook. Local, National, World.\r
     Be it political or otherwise. I don't give a shit about who they\r
     ban, and who they don't. I don't give a shit on who they censor,\r
     and who they don't. Just don't care. Face book has purchased the\r
     following which was competition. At least they didn't kill them.\r
     They own Tinder, dating. They own Instagram, another form of\r
     social media. And a couple others were mentioned in the article.\r
     My profile was not used by that company that tried t\r
\r
  ** What the f____ (Score:2)\r
     (by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ))\r
\r
     \r
     "Look over here! See? We're thinking about maybe eventually\r
     doing something someday! (Pay no attention to the massive\r
     personal data collection feast that\r
     every-single-damn-corporation and government in the entire\r
     bloody world is gorging on behind the curtain)"\r
     WHY do people give so many shits for instabook and facegram?\r
     It's not something anybody actually needs to begin with. For\r
     fucks sake. Big tech is not "The internet"... in fact, the case\r
     has been made that these companies are big evil time eaters that\r
     p\r
\r
     ** Re: (Score:2)\r
        (by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ))\r
\r
        \r
        Hell, let's start with the fact that before Facebook, what\r
        ever. Credit cards are tracked, companies record everything\r
        you purchase from them. Those company cards on your key\r
        change to save 3 cents. That is all tracked. And it is all\r
        shared via companies selling the information\r
\r
\r
\r