https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...eview-2017

The big tech companies are coming under increasing fire. Google and Facebook are becoming monopolistic. Should government act and how?

Some articles have discussed treating them as a utility. That seems like a cure worse than the disease. Then the government will tell these powerful intrusive companies what to do.

Being a monopoly is not actionable under the law. Misusing monopoly power is.

That being said, I agree that Google, Facebook, and Twitter hold an enormous amount of 'personal choice' power that seems to be misused at times to present or support a point of view.

Case in point -- Facebook banning alt-right dudes. I am *not* a supporter of white power viewpoints; however, I *am* as close to an absolutist in First Amendment. Problem is that Google, Facebook, and Twitter, being private actors, are not subject to First Amendment restrictions. Being private actors they can do almost anything they want 'censorship'-wise.

The answer is *not* to make them subject to First Amendment, nor is it to punish them for being a natural monopoly. Trust me, pragmatically I think this would be great; until you realize that you would be chucking the rule of law out the window to do it.

As much as I pragmatically would like the government 'to do something', that 'to do something' means stretching the applicable legal standards well past their breaking point for my taste.

(12-25-2017 09:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Being a monopoly is not actionable under the law. Misusing monopoly power is.

That being said, I agree that Google, Facebook, and Twitter hold an enormous amount of 'personal choice' power that seems to be misused at times to present or support a point of view.

Case in point -- Facebook banning alt-right dudes. I am *not* a supporter of white power viewpoints; however, I *am* as close to an absolutist in First Amendment. Problem is that Google, Facebook, and Twitter, being private actors, are not subject to First Amendment restrictions. Being private actors they can do almost anything they want 'censorship'-wise.

The answer is *not* to make them subject to First Amendment, nor is it to punish them for being a natural monopoly. Trust me, pragmatically I think this would be great; until you realize that you would be chucking the rule of law out the window to do it.

As much as I pragmatically would like the government 'to do something', that 'to do something' means stretching the applicable legal standards well past their breaking point for my taste.

Agree.

I think we have ample tools under existing anti-trust and other laws to advance properly the public interest.

(12-24-2017 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...eview-2017

The big tech companies are coming under increasing fire. Google and Facebook are becoming monopolistic. Should government act and how?

Some articles have discussed treating them as a utility. That seems like a cure worse than the disease. Then the government will tell these powerful intrusive companies what to do.

Eh, they’re not a monopoly because there are alternatives that folks could use. Don’t like google? Use bing.

You don’t have to be on Facebook or twitter unless you want to be.

Anyone could make another social media platform. Hell, before Facebook was big MySpace was where everybody was.

Facebook and Twitter are not "high tech" or particularly difficult or expensive to replicate, at least the platform (security will take much longer). I wouldn't call them monopolies. They don't cost anything to use and it isn't like a utility where there can only be one provider due to public infrastructure. If they fail to meet the public standard, they will be replaced rapidly without any government action. Ask MySpace. They have no obligation to allow anything to go on their site. No matter what your views, there is somewhere on the internutz to share them. As soon as Facebook or Twitter moves to go too far and censor someone like Trump, or a movement like Trump's, people will leave in droves and continue elsewhere.

anti-trust worked before....not sure why it couldn't be applied again if censorship can be proved....

it's why they're starting to somewhat back-off....

you know they meet with lawyers daily to make certain they dodge appearing before 'that' committee....

right now, they're simply pushing buttons to see what or what not at this point.....

those boys ain't stupid....

Ask someone under 20 how much they use Facebook. Most of the U20s I know have it but don't use it on a daily basis. Pre-teens may use it a bit more but who wants to hang out at the place where their parents hang out?

Censorship is stupid easy to prove.

It's a known fact that Facebook has been reducing the reach of posts from news outlets that don't pay. If you run a small town newspaper and have 1000 facebook followers your newest post may only reach 200 of those followers unless you pay to promote it.

I get about 10% to 15% reach on Facebook to people who follow my site. For $5 I can get about 25% for around $40 bucks I can reach about half of the people who clicked saying they wanted to see my content.

Google skews results as well plus they use a nifty trick. Search google for say Home Depot. The first listing will be a listing for Home Depot that is an ad and Home Depot gets charged if you click it. Scroll below it and there will be the google result which they don't get paid for.

But I wouldn't expect any regulation coming soon. This Congress and president aren't upping regulations.

(12-27-2017 12:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Censorship is stupid easy to prove.

It's a known fact that Facebook has been reducing the reach of posts from news outlets that don't pay. If you run a small town newspaper and have 1000 facebook followers your newest post may only reach 200 of those followers unless you pay to promote it.

I get about 10% to 15% reach on Facebook to people who follow my site. For $5 I can get about 25% for around $40 bucks I can reach about half of the people who clicked saying they wanted to see my content.

Google skews results as well plus they use a nifty trick. Search google for say Home Depot. The first listing will be a listing for Home Depot that is an ad and Home Depot gets charged if you click it. Scroll below it and there will be the google result which they don't get paid for.

But I wouldn't expect any regulation coming soon. This Congress and president aren't upping regulations.

The issue isnt the legal issue of censorship. Google, Facebook, Twitter (and all the rest) are *all* private actors. They can legally 'censor' whatever the blast they want whenever they want with *no* legal repercussions.

To legislate (or use government action such as suing) to stop their practice is more dangerous than the perceived benefit.

Why do you want a version a "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies? Honestly speaking, if such regulations were put into place I think the social media companies would (justly so) sue the fing pants off the government for a violation of *their* First Amendment rights as private actors.

The *only* justification for such rules and doctrines is that normal broadcast radio and TV use limited resources (spectrum). The license to use that spectrum (a very limited resource, mind you) is that they *don't* put their hands on the scales.

I fail to see *any* justification for government regulation for social media at all. In fact, I would extremely worried if they did.

(12-26-2017 09:02 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 10:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...eview-2017

The big tech companies are coming under increasing fire. Google and Facebook are becoming monopolistic. Should government act and how?

Some articles have discussed treating them as a utility. That seems like a cure worse than the disease. Then the government will tell these powerful intrusive companies what to do.

Eh, they’re not a monopoly because there are alternatives that folks could use. Don’t like google? Use bing.

You don’t have to be on Facebook or twitter unless you want to be.

Anyone could make another social media platform. Hell, before Facebook was big MySpace was where everybody was.

You don't have to be a literal monopoly to have monopolistic power.

Apple is often thrown in with the others, but I think they are much more vulnerable. Apple once dominated computers. They were followed by IBM. The iPhone and their other devices could rapidly become minor players just like Apple computers did.

Facebook, Google and Amazon are not quite as vulnerable. Facebook and Google control information distribution. Amazon is getting a very strong position in product distribution.

(12-27-2017 03:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Apple is often thrown in with the others, but I think they are much more vulnerable. Apple once dominated computers. They were followed by IBM. The iPhone and their other devices could rapidly become minor players just like Apple computers did.

Facebook, Google and Amazon are not quite as vulnerable. Facebook and Google control information distribution. Amazon is getting a very strong position in product distribution.

Yup. Apple isnt like the other companies. It is a consumer electronics company not a tech company. And that's why its P/E multiple is in line with an electronics company rather than with a tech company.

(12-28-2017 10:53 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 03:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Apple is often thrown in with the others, but I think they are much more vulnerable. Apple once dominated computers. They were followed by IBM. The iPhone and their other devices could rapidly become minor players just like Apple computers did.

Facebook, Google and Amazon are not quite as vulnerable. Facebook and Google control information distribution. Amazon is getting a very strong position in product distribution.

Yup. Apple isnt like the other companies. It is a consumer electronics company not a tech company. And that's why its P/E multiple is in line with an electronics company rather than with a tech company.

Its different as it actually has a significant revenue through digital distribution. The amount of revenues they generate off apps in the Apple store and Apple Music is ginormous (about 1/6 of their entire revenues). After the iPhone, digital distribution is the largest revenue generation in the company.

They were deadly smart in building their iPhone and iPad base. Then they locked the distribution of apps to their control. In order for an app to be offered in the Apple Store, a developer has to hand over 30 per cent of all fees. And, the app developer is forbidden from offering a link to their own signup page to do a "free now then circumvent Apple by doing the pay thing with us."

So they make direct money off direct consumer electronics, then dip their beak into anything that runs on the electronics on a continuous basis.

There was a time when people thought the Sears & Roebuck catalog was everything. Amazon is no different. It's time will come and go as well.

(12-27-2017 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Censorship is stupid easy to prove.

It's a known fact that Facebook has been reducing the reach of posts from news outlets that don't pay. If you run a small town newspaper and have 1000 facebook followers your newest post may only reach 200 of those followers unless you pay to promote it.

I get about 10% to 15% reach on Facebook to people who follow my site. For $5 I can get about 25% for around $40 bucks I can reach about half of the people who clicked saying they wanted to see my content.

Google skews results as well plus they use a nifty trick. Search google for say Home Depot. The first listing will be a listing for Home Depot that is an ad and Home Depot gets charged if you click it. Scroll below it and there will be the google result which they don't get paid for.

But I wouldn't expect any regulation coming soon. This Congress and president aren't upping regulations.

The issue isnt the legal issue of censorship. Google, Facebook, Twitter (and all the rest) are *all* private actors. They can legally 'censor' whatever the blast they want whenever they want with *no* legal repercussions.

To legislate (or use government action such as suing) to stop their practice is more dangerous than the perceived benefit.

Why do you want a version a "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies? Honestly speaking, if such regulations were put into place I think the social media companies would (justly so) sue the fing pants off the government for a violation of *their* First Amendment rights as private actors.

The *only* justification for such rules and doctrines is that normal broadcast radio and TV use limited resources (spectrum). The license to use that spectrum (a very limited resource, mind you) is that they *don't* put their hands on the scales.

I fail to see *any* justification for government regulation for social media at all. In fact, I would extremely worried if they did.

It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

(12-31-2017 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Censorship is stupid easy to prove.

It's a known fact that Facebook has been reducing the reach of posts from news outlets that don't pay. If you run a small town newspaper and have 1000 facebook followers your newest post may only reach 200 of those followers unless you pay to promote it.

I get about 10% to 15% reach on Facebook to people who follow my site. For $5 I can get about 25% for around $40 bucks I can reach about half of the people who clicked saying they wanted to see my content.

Google skews results as well plus they use a nifty trick. Search google for say Home Depot. The first listing will be a listing for Home Depot that is an ad and Home Depot gets charged if you click it. Scroll below it and there will be the google result which they don't get paid for.

But I wouldn't expect any regulation coming soon. This Congress and president aren't upping regulations.

The issue isnt the legal issue of censorship. Google, Facebook, Twitter (and all the rest) are *all* private actors. They can legally 'censor' whatever the blast they want whenever they want with *no* legal repercussions.

To legislate (or use government action such as suing) to stop their practice is more dangerous than the perceived benefit.

Why do you want a version a "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies? Honestly speaking, if such regulations were put into place I think the social media companies would (justly so) sue the fing pants off the government for a violation of *their* First Amendment rights as private actors.

The *only* justification for such rules and doctrines is that normal broadcast radio and TV use limited resources (spectrum). The license to use that spectrum (a very limited resource, mind you) is that they *don't* put their hands on the scales.

I fail to see *any* justification for government regulation for social media at all. In fact, I would extremely worried if they did.

It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

I dont see any problems with Sherman or Clayton.

Sherman 1 requires :
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
(anticompetive collusion).

No agreement between any of the social media, no Sherman 1 violation.

Sherman 2a requires:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
(misuse of monopoly power in an anti-competitive)

Again, the individual social media might meet element 1. But what in the 'bad usage' complained of is quashing other competition? None that I can see.

Sherman 2b requires:

(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).

(attempted monopolization through bad acts. Again no violation.)

Clayton Act -- many individual and particularized violations, including such items as:

Quote:price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);

mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);

any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).

(From Wikipedia entry for Clayton Act)

Again, no current violation by 'big tech'.

So under a current "monopoly analysis" there are no problems.

By your statement

Quote:It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

it seems that you must mean "[i] matters when you do a brand new defined variety of monopoly analysis as opposed to anything that actually exists.

What I hear from the "brand new defined analysis" that runs through this thread really amounts to nothing more than an "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies. I can't support that in the slightest. And I guess that is where you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.

(01-01-2018 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2017 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Censorship is stupid easy to prove.

It's a known fact that Facebook has been reducing the reach of posts from news outlets that don't pay. If you run a small town newspaper and have 1000 facebook followers your newest post may only reach 200 of those followers unless you pay to promote it.

I get about 10% to 15% reach on Facebook to people who follow my site. For $5 I can get about 25% for around $40 bucks I can reach about half of the people who clicked saying they wanted to see my content.

Google skews results as well plus they use a nifty trick. Search google for say Home Depot. The first listing will be a listing for Home Depot that is an ad and Home Depot gets charged if you click it. Scroll below it and there will be the google result which they don't get paid for.

But I wouldn't expect any regulation coming soon. This Congress and president aren't upping regulations.

The issue isnt the legal issue of censorship. Google, Facebook, Twitter (and all the rest) are *all* private actors. They can legally 'censor' whatever the blast they want whenever they want with *no* legal repercussions.

To legislate (or use government action such as suing) to stop their practice is more dangerous than the perceived benefit.

Why do you want a version a "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies? Honestly speaking, if such regulations were put into place I think the social media companies would (justly so) sue the fing pants off the government for a violation of *their* First Amendment rights as private actors.

The *only* justification for such rules and doctrines is that normal broadcast radio and TV use limited resources (spectrum). The license to use that spectrum (a very limited resource, mind you) is that they *don't* put their hands on the scales.

I fail to see *any* justification for government regulation for social media at all. In fact, I would extremely worried if they did.

It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

I dont see any problems with Sherman or Clayton.

Sherman 1 requires :
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
(anticompetive collusion).

No agreement between any of the social media, no Sherman 1 violation.

Sherman 2a requires:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
(misuse of monopoly power in an anti-competitive)

Again, the individual social media might meet element 1. But what in the 'bad usage' complained of is quashing other competition? None that I can see.

Sherman 2b requires:

(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).

(attempted monopolization through bad acts. Again no violation.)

Clayton Act -- many individual and particularized violations, including such items as:

Quote:price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);

mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);

any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).

(From Wikipedia entry for Clayton Act)

Again, no current violation by 'big tech'.

So under a current "monopoly analysis" there are no problems.

By your statement

Quote:It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

it seems that you must mean "[i] matters when you do a brand new defined variety of monopoly analysis as opposed to anything that actually exists.

What I hear from the "brand new defined analysis" that runs through this thread really amounts to nothing more than an "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies. I can't support that in the slightest. And I guess that is where you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.

you're arguing an outdated law in scope....that's the problem....

what needs to be argued is how to adapt to current practices.....

I easily understand choice....however, when something is embedded as first pass and almost always first click, one has to question such being competitive on any device....

(01-02-2018 02:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2017 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 03:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 12:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Censorship is stupid easy to prove.

It's a known fact that Facebook has been reducing the reach of posts from news outlets that don't pay. If you run a small town newspaper and have 1000 facebook followers your newest post may only reach 200 of those followers unless you pay to promote it.

I get about 10% to 15% reach on Facebook to people who follow my site. For $5 I can get about 25% for around $40 bucks I can reach about half of the people who clicked saying they wanted to see my content.

Google skews results as well plus they use a nifty trick. Search google for say Home Depot. The first listing will be a listing for Home Depot that is an ad and Home Depot gets charged if you click it. Scroll below it and there will be the google result which they don't get paid for.

But I wouldn't expect any regulation coming soon. This Congress and president aren't upping regulations.

The issue isnt the legal issue of censorship. Google, Facebook, Twitter (and all the rest) are *all* private actors. They can legally 'censor' whatever the blast they want whenever they want with *no* legal repercussions.

To legislate (or use government action such as suing) to stop their practice is more dangerous than the perceived benefit.

Why do you want a version a "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies? Honestly speaking, if such regulations were put into place I think the social media companies would (justly so) sue the fing pants off the government for a violation of *their* First Amendment rights as private actors.

The *only* justification for such rules and doctrines is that normal broadcast radio and TV use limited resources (spectrum). The license to use that spectrum (a very limited resource, mind you) is that they *don't* put their hands on the scales.

I fail to see *any* justification for government regulation for social media at all. In fact, I would extremely worried if they did.

It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

I dont see any problems with Sherman or Clayton.

Sherman 1 requires :
(1) an agreement;
(2) which unreasonably restrains competition; and
(3) which affects interstate commerce.
(anticompetive collusion).

No agreement between any of the social media, no Sherman 1 violation.

Sherman 2a requires:
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
(misuse of monopoly power in an anti-competitive)

Again, the individual social media might meet element 1. But what in the 'bad usage' complained of is quashing other competition? None that I can see.

Sherman 2b requires:

(1) qualifying exclusionary or anticompetitive acts designed to establish a monopoly
(2) specific intent to monopolize; and
(3) dangerous probability of success (actual monopolization).

(attempted monopolization through bad acts. Again no violation.)

Clayton Act -- many individual and particularized violations, including such items as:

Quote:price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);

sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);

mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);

any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).

(From Wikipedia entry for Clayton Act)

Again, no current violation by 'big tech'.

So under a current "monopoly analysis" there are no problems.

By your statement

Quote:It matters when you do a monopoly analysis.

it seems that you must mean "[i] matters when you do a brand new defined variety of monopoly analysis as opposed to anything that actually exists.

What I hear from the "brand new defined analysis" that runs through this thread really amounts to nothing more than an "equal time rule" or "fairness doctrine" for social media companies. I can't support that in the slightest. And I guess that is where you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.

you're arguing an outdated law in scope....that's the problem....

what needs to be argued is how to adapt to current practices.....

I easily understand choice....however, when something is embedded as first pass and almost always first click, one has to question such being competitive on any device....

my point in total was to show that the post that i responded to that said 'you have to use a monopoly analysis' just iant applicable for assessing facebook etc.

could you expand on your 'first click' and 'first pass' comment? im not sure i fully understand your point. thanks in advance.

(12-27-2017 03:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Apple is often thrown in with the others, but I think they are much more vulnerable. Apple once dominated computers. They were followed by IBM. The iPhone and their other devices could rapidly become minor players just like Apple computers did.

As near as I can tell, Apple has never been close to a 20% market share (even when the market was tiny), let alone "dominating" the market, and in most of their 37 years or so have been under 10%.

Likewise, their share of the smartphone market has never topped 25%...
• Apple iPhone market share 2017 | Statista

Quote:Apple has been amongst the top 5 smartphone vendors in the world since 2009.
...
Apple has consistently been Samsung’s closest competitor, maintaining the position of second most popular smartphone vendor in the world since 2012.

(12-27-2017 03:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Apple is often thrown in with the others, but I think they are much more vulnerable. Apple once dominated computers. They were followed by IBM. The iPhone and their other devices could rapidly become minor players just like Apple computers did.

Facebook, Google and Amazon are not quite as vulnerable. Facebook and Google control information distribution. Amazon is getting a very strong position in product distribution.

When Apple dominated computers it was a small niche market. When it became a broad consumer market they were a small player. The iPod is probably the only consumer device they've ever made that was dominant in a broad consumer market. The iPhone has never held big market share.

Apple is more similar to BMW/Mercedes or Rolex/Omega than Ford/Toyota or Timex/Fossil, they make high margin products and don't want to wade into the low price and low margin markets.