Add title in index pages, add reference in story

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

   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 Reference: 0102640274
  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