Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Tech regulation coming?
Author Message
bullet Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,699
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 521
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Tech regulation coming?
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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 32,472
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 740
I Root For: Fire 'Arry!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #12
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,706
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 77
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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.
12-28-2017 06:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Claw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,037
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 314
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Orangeville HELP!
Post: #14
RE: Tech regulation coming?
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.
12-29-2017 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,516
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 577
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,706
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 77
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 33,004
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 1215
I Root For: StL Blues & USM
Location: who knows?
Post: #17
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,706
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 77
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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.
01-02-2018 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,828
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 172
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #19
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2018 04:07 PM by I45owl.)
01-03-2018 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,516
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 577
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Tech regulation coming?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2018 05:34 PM by arkstfan.)
01-03-2018 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.