6 ms·

If these articles were truly concerned about tech monopolies, they would mention ISP's broadband monopolies and net neutrality. Curiously, they never do. Plat

If these articles were truly concerned about tech monopolies, they would mention ISP's broadband monopolies and net neutrality. Curiously, they never do. Platforms come and go. Google couldn't even get a decent social network off the ground and has had too many failed projects to count. Monopolies built on infrastructure, like ISPs, are the ones that stick around without intervention. I suspect all this news about Google and Facebook being the big bad wolves are meant to distract from net neutrality and ISP monopolies.

azakai 9y ago
> If these articles were truly concerned about tech monopolies, they would mention ISP's broadband monopolies and net neutrality. Curiously, they never do. I've seen plenty of articles talk about ISP monopolies and net neutrality. In fact several of the articles around these recent events have tied things to net neutrality as well.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  Where? Can you cite one that argues Google is a monopoly and also argues against ISP broadband monopolies? All the ones I see are slanted, for example [1], > "In their net neutrality fairy tale, internet service providers (ISPs) are the ‘big bad wolf,’ bent on creating paid ‘fast lanes’ and blocking the websites of entrepreneurs (who invariably work out of their garages). It sounds like a frightful tale, except that ISPs have never offered paid fast lanes or blocked small business owners’ web sites (run out of garages or otherwise). Meanwhile, the biggest baddest wolf the world has ever known — Google — swallowed the internet ecosystem whole and spit out its bones." [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/05/03/the-truth-about-net-neutrality-the-left-and-google/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/05/03/the-tru... Edit: Please explain your downvotes, thanks!
  - azakai 9y ago
    You asked for something more specific now than you asked for earlier. But here's an article that mentions Google is a monopoly and also mentions net neutrality: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16226616/barry-lynn-google-new-america https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16226616/b... > New America eventually emerged as one of the most forceful voices in favor of “net neutrality” — a key progressive advocacy goal that also aligned with Google’s corporate objectives. It's not surprising it mentions net neutrality because New America was focused on it (as was Google). The article is also critical of telcoms, > And, indeed, for years it was common to hear telecom industry lobbyists complain that it was inappropriate for journalists to take New America’s policy expertise on these subjects at face value — arguing that the think tank was basically just a cut-out for Google. Telecom companies, too, have their own favorite think tanks. It's not rare to see think pieces that support net neutrality and/or oppose telcom dominance, so it's not surprising there are articles talking about Google's dominance that also mention those.
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      > You asked for something more specific now than you asked for earlier. Nope, not at all. I said articles that mention Google/Facebook monopolies never mention ISP monopolies. That's true, they don't, including the vox article you link. > The article is also critical of telcoms Perhaps you misread the quote. That is reporting, not criticism. From the same article, this is criticism, << Google, like any other giant company, is going to sometimes find itself in the regulatory crosshairs, throwing its weight around to try to get away with things that maybe shouldn't be allowed. “Don't be evil” was a nice idea while it lasted, but business is business and politics is politics — no exceptions. >>
      - azakai 9y ago
        I may have misunderstood you. When you wrote > they would mention ISP's broadband monopolies and net neutrality I thought you meant they never mention either. Now it sounds like you meant they never mention them both together. It seems odd to expect an article focused on criticizing Google to also criticize a bunch of other things at the same time. I don't think the lack of that proves anything.
        unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > It seems odd to expect an article focused on criticizing Google to also criticize a bunch of other things at the same time It's not just about this one article. It's that none of those critiquing Google mention the ISP monopolies that everyone knows are there. If I were going to rage about tech monopolies as a journalist, and I believed both of these were monopolies, I'd mention both. > I don't think the lack of that proves anything. No sweat, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I often see Google critiqued as left-leaning, and NN critiqued as leftist policy. I noticed a pattern in recent news. It's fine if you don't see it the way I do.
ocdtrekkie 9y ago
ISPs are not Google-scale. Comcast's damage to society is unlikely to extend beyond the United States, and US politics is prone to change every four years anyways. (Also note that Google is expected to take the #1 lobbying spending spot away from Comcast this year.) Google is a worldwide threat, that not only is evil, but is much better at hiding how evil they are. Consider the fact that Google is, bare minimum, as evil as Comcast. But if you grab a handful of people and ask what their opinions of each company is, they will be vastly different. The fact that Google is so good at manipulating the press, as seen in this very story, is why they are such a massive threat.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > ISPs are not Google-scale That's right. ISPs have regional monopolies. Google competes on a global scale. Google's biggest competitor may be Baidu and China. > Consider the fact that Google is, bare minimum, as evil as Comcast No way. There is tons of evidence of Comcast acting evilly. They constantly underperform in their quality of service and costs. Google outperforms. You just feel they are evil because of their success. Google has gone to great lengths to give back to the world on whose infrastructure it was built. They give tons of services for free to non profits [1], they publish a lot of their most innovative research, and they use patents for defense rather than offense. That's just naming a few things. Comcast does none of this. They just hold out their hands for more money without providing additional value. [1] https://www.google.com/nonprofits/ https://www.google.com/nonprofits/
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    There is a massive amount of evidence of Google acting evilly... Despite how much of it they manage to cover up. They collect patents because patents are good for threatening competitors like any good corporation does. Google even has a patent shakedown scheme to get startups to pay to license their patents. They give away free services sometimes because its good PR. So do ISPs. Heck, in terms of charitable giving, Google is batting a zero against Verizon this week. They initially offered to match some employee donations up to $250,000 for hurricane Harvey relief, added a straight $250,000 donation on top of that, and later did another matching thing to bring it up over like a million. ...Verizon, a company we can all agree is evil as sin itself... Straight up pledged ten million dollars for hurricane relief with no strings about needing matching donations attached. Makes Google's gesture seem like a footnote. The difference in evillness between Google and ISPs is simple: Google also suppresses the media.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

azakai 9y ago

> If these articles were truly concerned about tech monopolies, they would mention ISP's broadband monopolies and net neutrality. Curiously, they never do. I've seen plenty of articles talk about ISP monopolies and net neutrality. In fact several of the articles around these recent events have tied things to net neutrality as well.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
Where? Can you cite one that argues Google is a monopoly and also argues against ISP broadband monopolies? All the ones I see are slanted, for example [1], > "In their net neutrality fairy tale, internet service providers (ISPs) are the ‘big bad wolf,’ bent on creating paid ‘fast lanes’ and blocking the websites of entrepreneurs (who invariably work out of their garages). It sounds like a frightful tale, except that ISPs have never offered paid fast lanes or blocked small business owners’ web sites (run out of garages or otherwise). Meanwhile, the biggest baddest wolf the world has ever known — Google — swallowed the internet ecosystem whole and spit out its bones." [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/05/03/the-truth-about-net-neutrality-the-left-and-google/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2017/05/03/the-tru... Edit: Please explain your downvotes, thanks!
- azakai 9y ago
  You asked for something more specific now than you asked for earlier. But here's an article that mentions Google is a monopoly and also mentions net neutrality: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16226616/barry-lynn-google-new-america https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16226616/b... > New America eventually emerged as one of the most forceful voices in favor of “net neutrality” — a key progressive advocacy goal that also aligned with Google’s corporate objectives. It's not surprising it mentions net neutrality because New America was focused on it (as was Google). The article is also critical of telcoms, > And, indeed, for years it was common to hear telecom industry lobbyists complain that it was inappropriate for journalists to take New America’s policy expertise on these subjects at face value — arguing that the think tank was basically just a cut-out for Google. Telecom companies, too, have their own favorite think tanks. It's not rare to see think pieces that support net neutrality and/or oppose telcom dominance, so it's not surprising there are articles talking about Google's dominance that also mention those.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > You asked for something more specific now than you asked for earlier. Nope, not at all. I said articles that mention Google/Facebook monopolies never mention ISP monopolies. That's true, they don't, including the vox article you link. > The article is also critical of telcoms Perhaps you misread the quote. That is reporting, not criticism. From the same article, this is criticism, << Google, like any other giant company, is going to sometimes find itself in the regulatory crosshairs, throwing its weight around to try to get away with things that maybe shouldn't be allowed. “Don't be evil” was a nice idea while it lasted, but business is business and politics is politics — no exceptions. >>
    - azakai 9y ago
      I may have misunderstood you. When you wrote > they would mention ISP's broadband monopolies and net neutrality I thought you meant they never mention either. Now it sounds like you meant they never mention them both together. It seems odd to expect an article focused on criticizing Google to also criticize a bunch of other things at the same time. I don't think the lack of that proves anything.
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > It seems odd to expect an article focused on criticizing Google to also criticize a bunch of other things at the same time It's not just about this one article. It's that none of those critiquing Google mention the ISP monopolies that everyone knows are there. If I were going to rage about tech monopolies as a journalist, and I believed both of these were monopolies, I'd mention both. > I don't think the lack of that proves anything. No sweat, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I often see Google critiqued as left-leaning, and NN critiqued as leftist policy. I noticed a pattern in recent news. It's fine if you don't see it the way I do.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

ISPs are not Google-scale. Comcast's damage to society is unlikely to extend beyond the United States, and US politics is prone to change every four years anyways. (Also note that Google is expected to take the #1 lobbying spending spot away from Comcast this year.) Google is a worldwide threat, that not only is evil, but is much better at hiding how evil they are. Consider the fact that Google is, bare minimum, as evil as Comcast. But if you grab a handful of people and ask what their opinions of each company is, they will be vastly different. The fact that Google is so good at manipulating the press, as seen in this very story, is why they are such a massive threat.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> ISPs are not Google-scale That's right. ISPs have regional monopolies. Google competes on a global scale. Google's biggest competitor may be Baidu and China. > Consider the fact that Google is, bare minimum, as evil as Comcast No way. There is tons of evidence of Comcast acting evilly. They constantly underperform in their quality of service and costs. Google outperforms. You just feel they are evil because of their success. Google has gone to great lengths to give back to the world on whose infrastructure it was built. They give tons of services for free to non profits [1], they publish a lot of their most innovative research, and they use patents for defense rather than offense. That's just naming a few things. Comcast does none of this. They just hold out their hands for more money without providing additional value. [1] https://www.google.com/nonprofits/ https://www.google.com/nonprofits/
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  There is a massive amount of evidence of Google acting evilly... Despite how much of it they manage to cover up. They collect patents because patents are good for threatening competitors like any good corporation does. Google even has a patent shakedown scheme to get startups to pay to license their patents. They give away free services sometimes because its good PR. So do ISPs. Heck, in terms of charitable giving, Google is batting a zero against Verizon this week. They initially offered to match some employee donations up to $250,000 for hurricane Harvey relief, added a straight $250,000 donation on top of that, and later did another matching thing to bring it up over like a million. ...Verizon, a company we can all agree is evil as sin itself... Straight up pledged ten million dollars for hurricane relief with no strings about needing matching donations attached. Makes Google's gesture seem like a footnote. The difference in evillness between Google and ISPs is simple: Google also suppresses the media.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]