"The U.S. Justice Department is planning an antitrust investigation into Alphabet’s Google subsidiary, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. The effort will touch on web search and other parts of Google, the report said...."
"...Of course, it matters that he is a Trump supporter. Outlets like The Daily Beast don’t make a routine practice of hunting down trolls who are producing the vast sea of anti-Trump material online, because they don’t consider spoofing or maligning Trump to be a threat to democracy — or at all undesirable.
Incredibly enough, according to The Daily Beast, someone at Facebook provided details about the man’s posting history that were used to confirm the story. Users of Facebook should take note: Menlo Park is monitoring you, and the firm can and will participate with reporters in your doxxing, as deemed necessary...."
If Trump can do something meaningful on internet censorship/deplatforming, despite his utter failure on the border, it will have been a successful first term and I will be back on board for 2020.
(06-04-2019 03:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Google they could get since there are 2 search engines. Google and Bing. The others piggyback off those 32.
Facebook would be harder since there are close to 50 sites similar to them.
Google and Facebook amount for 84% of digital advertising.
Google and Apple amount for 99% of mobile apps.
Amazon amounts for 50% of online retail, 65% of new book sales. If they dub you guilty of wrong think, you might as well not even try to write or market a book.
When gab tried to compete with twitter, all of silicon valley teamed up in their universal refusal to provide their services or do business with them. Were they acting on twitter's behalf? Some lawyers believe so.
They are monopolies and duopolies. It would be one thing if they were fair players and benefited all consumers, but they are now refusing service to those who don't fall in line with their politics.
Bonus question: Does anyone know what is amazon's most profitable business?
It goes go much deeper than just, "Well, if you don't like amazon, just shop somewhere else." -- No. They (apple, google, facebook, amazon) are working on gobbling up the entire internet, and they've already proved that they can't be trusted.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2019 03:48 PM by Kronke.)
(06-04-2019 03:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Google they could get since there are 2 search engines. Google and Bing. The others piggyback off those 32.
Facebook would be harder since there are close to 50 sites similar to them.
Google and Facebook amount for 84% of digital advertising.
Google and Apple amount for 99% of mobile apps.
Amazon amounts for 50% of online retail, 65% of new book sales. If they dub you guilty of wrong think, you might as well not even try to write or market a book.
When gab tried to compete with twitter, all of silicon valley teamed up in their universal refusal to provide their services or do business with them. Were they acting on twitter's behalf? Some lawyers believe so.
They are monopolies and duopolies. It would be one thing if they were fair players and benefited all consumers, but they are now refusing service to those who don't fall in line with their politics.
Bonus question: Does anyone know what is amazon's most profitable business?
It goes go much deeper than just, "Well, if you don't like amazon, just shop somewhere else." -- No. They (apple, google, facebook, amazon) are working on gobbling up the entire internet, and they've already proved that they can't be trusted.
AWS is their most profitable sector.
Monopolies should be taken down.
Facebook is not a monopoly. They don't sell anything except ad space and they're not even close to being the dominant player in that.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2019 04:54 PM by king king.)
(06-04-2019 03:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Google they could get since there are 2 search engines. Google and Bing. The others piggyback off those 32.
Facebook would be harder since there are close to 50 sites similar to them.
Google and Facebook amount for 84% of digital advertising.
Google and Apple amount for 99% of mobile apps.
Amazon amounts for 50% of online retail, 65% of new book sales. If they dub you guilty of wrong think, you might as well not even try to write or market a book.
When gab tried to compete with twitter, all of silicon valley teamed up in their universal refusal to provide their services or do business with them. Were they acting on twitter's behalf? Some lawyers believe so.
They are monopolies and duopolies. It would be one thing if they were fair players and benefited all consumers, but they are now refusing service to those who don't fall in line with their politics.
Bonus question: Does anyone know what is amazon's most profitable business?
It goes go much deeper than just, "Well, if you don't like amazon, just shop somewhere else." -- No. They (apple, google, facebook, amazon) are working on gobbling up the entire internet, and they've already proved that they can't be trusted.
AWS is their most profitable sector.
Monopolies should be taken down.
Facebook is not a monopoly. They don't sell anything except ad space and they're not even close to being the dominant player in that.
Huh? So, your argument is that their product isn’t tangible, so anti-trust laws don’t apply?
Weak.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2019 06:26 PM by Kronke.)
(06-04-2019 03:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Google they could get since there are 2 search engines. Google and Bing. The others piggyback off those 32.
Facebook would be harder since there are close to 50 sites similar to them.
Google and Facebook amount for 84% of digital advertising.
Google and Apple amount for 99% of mobile apps.
Amazon amounts for 50% of online retail, 65% of new book sales. If they dub you guilty of wrong think, you might as well not even try to write or market a book.
When gab tried to compete with twitter, all of silicon valley teamed up in their universal refusal to provide their services or do business with them. Were they acting on twitter's behalf? Some lawyers believe so.
They are monopolies and duopolies. It would be one thing if they were fair players and benefited all consumers, but they are now refusing service to those who don't fall in line with their politics.
Bonus question: Does anyone know what is amazon's most profitable business?
It goes go much deeper than just, "Well, if you don't like amazon, just shop somewhere else." -- No. They (apple, google, facebook, amazon) are working on gobbling up the entire internet, and they've already proved that they can't be trusted.
AWS is their most profitable sector.
Monopolies should be taken down.
Facebook is not a monopoly. They don't sell anything except ad space and they're not even close to being the dominant player in that.
Huh? So, your argument is that their product isn’t tangible, so anti-trust laws don’t apply?
Weak.
No my argument is that they dont even come close to 50% dominance of what they DO sell. So monopoly doesn't apply. Try again.
(06-04-2019 03:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Google they could get since there are 2 search engines. Google and Bing. The others piggyback off those 32.
Facebook would be harder since there are close to 50 sites similar to them.
Google and Facebook amount for 84% of digital advertising.
Google and Apple amount for 99% of mobile apps.
Amazon amounts for 50% of online retail, 65% of new book sales. If they dub you guilty of wrong think, you might as well not even try to write or market a book.
When gab tried to compete with twitter, all of silicon valley teamed up in their universal refusal to provide their services or do business with them. Were they acting on twitter's behalf? Some lawyers believe so.
They are monopolies and duopolies. It would be one thing if they were fair players and benefited all consumers, but they are now refusing service to those who don't fall in line with their politics.
Bonus question: Does anyone know what is amazon's most profitable business?
It goes go much deeper than just, "Well, if you don't like amazon, just shop somewhere else." -- No. They (apple, google, facebook, amazon) are working on gobbling up the entire internet, and they've already proved that they can't be trusted.
AWS is their most profitable sector.
Monopolies should be taken down.
Facebook is not a monopoly. They don't sell anything except ad space and they're not even close to being the dominant player in that.
Huh? So, your argument is that their product isn’t tangible, so anti-trust laws don’t apply?
Weak.
No my argument is that they dont even come close to 50% dominance of what they DO sell. So monopoly doesn't apply. Try again.
With Google 99% of the ad market. That IS a market.
My schadenfreude runnith over. I was almost aroused.
Regarding ad market monopoly .... it's complicated.
Google is sorta 99% of the ad market and sorta not. At the low end (low traffic sites or sites of political content) Google is almost the only game in town. Not even close. AdSense is the publisher of last resort for many.
At the high end .... Google at least from my own personal data is only winning ad slots about 1 in 3 times here. They even get their butts handed to them some days by Amazon or IndexExchange or Rubicon or others. But you need to have a really large chunk of traffic before you're even allowed to play in this pool. If you don't churn 6 figures worth of impressions a week ... you're probably too small to even get in the door. However, somewhat perversely, the high end is frequently dependent upon DoubleClick which Google bought out. DoubleClick is Google's invite-or-vetted-approval-only ad auction service for high traffic sites. They dominate that market. I think DoubleClick gets a cut, though a minor on, of transactions cleared in this way. But that's a finger in nearly all the pies.
There is no middle ground really in my experience. I'd call the middle ground no man's land. You don't wanna be there.... enough traffic to have real infrastructure needs but not enough to have serious ad publisher interest.
(06-04-2019 03:46 PM)Kronke Wrote: Google and Facebook amount for 84% of digital advertising.
Google and Apple amount for 99% of mobile apps.
Amazon amounts for 50% of online retail, 65% of new book sales. If they dub you guilty of wrong think, you might as well not even try to write or market a book.
When gab tried to compete with twitter, all of silicon valley teamed up in their universal refusal to provide their services or do business with them. Were they acting on twitter's behalf? Some lawyers believe so.
They are monopolies and duopolies. It would be one thing if they were fair players and benefited all consumers, but they are now refusing service to those who don't fall in line with their politics.
Bonus question: Does anyone know what is amazon's most profitable business?
It goes go much deeper than just, "Well, if you don't like amazon, just shop somewhere else." -- No. They (apple, google, facebook, amazon) are working on gobbling up the entire internet, and they've already proved that they can't be trusted.
AWS is their most profitable sector.
Monopolies should be taken down.
Facebook is not a monopoly. They don't sell anything except ad space and they're not even close to being the dominant player in that.
Huh? So, your argument is that their product isn’t tangible, so anti-trust laws don’t apply?
Weak.
No my argument is that they dont even come close to 50% dominance of what they DO sell. So monopoly doesn't apply. Try again.
With Google 99% of the ad market. That IS a market.
I didn't say ad space isnt a market. I said FB sells only ad space and even with what they sell in ad space they're not dominant.
I said take the monopolies down.
Google, as previously mentioned, is a difficult thing to quantify. I'll be interested to see what comes from this antitrust case.
/
antitrust investigation of Google to start
