--- /dev/null
+ 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 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
+ pgmrdlm shares a report from The Verge: Best known for coining\r
+ the phrase "net neutrality" and his book The Master Switch:\r
+ The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Wu has a new book\r
+ coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust\r
+ in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a\r
+ return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of\r
+ Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and\r
+ other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they\r
+ get bigger and bigger. "We live in America, which has a strong\r
+ and proud tradition of breaking up companies that are too big\r
+ for inefficient reasons," Wu told me on this week's Vergecast.\r
+ "We need to reverse this idea that it's not an American\r
+ tradition. We've broken up dozens of companies." "I think if\r
+ you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and\r
+ Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions\r
+ have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number\r
+ of reasons," says Wu. And breaking up the company wouldn't be\r
+ hard, he says. "What would be the harm? You'll have three\r
+ competitors. It's not 'Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp\r
+ and Instagram, well then the whole world's going to fall\r
+ apart.' It would be like 'Okay, now you have some companies\r
+ actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.'"\r
+ Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like\r
+ Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law,\r
+ suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major rethinking of\r
+ how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant\r
+ platform companies give their products away for free, and the\r
+ ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems\r
+ to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that we all think\r
+ seriously about the conditions that create innovation. "I\r
+ think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I\r
+ think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector," says Wu.\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
git://git.nikiroo.be / gofetch.git / blobdiff