10 ms·

They really don’t. They don’t have monopolies on anything and there is no high barrier to entry to compete, they are just really popular. Facebook is far more

They really don’t. They don’t have monopolies on anything and there is no high barrier to entry to compete, they are just really popular. Facebook is far more akin to Kim Kardashian than Ma Bell or Standard Oil. You don’t need Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or any of that other crap. In fact, it turns out if you stop using them nothing bad happens to you at all. I’m many cases your life is better and you actually end up more connected to your friends and family. Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon however… now those are some real problem companies that pose real dangers.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
AT&T is a tech giant in precisely the same sense that Google is.
- themagician 8y ago
  AT&T controls infrastructure and has a monopoly in certain geographic areas. Google does not. Google has a monopoly on search, but that’s about it. There are alternatives though, some of which are as good or better in many ways.
  - ghostly_s 8y ago
    In any meaningful sense, search is infrastructure now. So is email, etc.
  - basilgohar 8y ago
    Google dominates search, but also dominates e-mail, mobile devices (less so, but still a major player), and is heavily involved in many other tech verticals. That they dominate isn't the problem. That they are leveraging their hegemony across all of these verticals to drive their main source of revenue, advertising, is where the concern comes. The fact is it is nearly impossible for a non-entrenched player to enter into the market without either being drowned our or bought-up by one of the big players is where the monopolistic concerns arise.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Some people have no choice but to use ATT, it's the only way to get internet into their home. I can do everything I need to without Google, but not ATT.
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    > I can do everything I need to without Google, but not ATT. I'm betting that you actually cannot. If you blacklisted Google's domains many sites would be inaccessible or broken due to reCaptcha, Google-hosted fonts/scripts, or ad-blocker blockers.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      That's true, but it feels different than owning the only telecommunications cable going into homes. I would actually classify wired and wireless internet providers as utilities since the capital costs are so enormous it's impossible for a new supplier to enter the market, but that may apply to Google too.
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    I have some (more bio, less cs) colleagues who only distribute and edit in google documents. I don’t think avoiding all google services is exactly trivial.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gambler 8y ago
>You don’t need Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or any of that other crap. You didn't need Microsoft products in the 90s. Except you did if you wanted to do serious work. That's why they were targeted by antitrust regulation. Exactly the same situation here, except Facebook and co have much more control over their product and can directly influence public opinion, not just software.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >Except you did if you wanted to do serious work. What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely?
  - AlexandrB 8y ago
    > What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? If you're a company looking to advertise your product or service: the largest audience in the world.
  - macintux 8y ago
    > What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? Accidental discovery of things important to you. I'm no fan of Facebook, but shortly after I signed up I found out that my sister, who was fighting cancer, was in the hospital again. I went to see her, and we had the best 1:1 talk we'd ever had. She passed away a few months later. Yes, in an ideal world I would have been in proactive contact with everyone and might have found out independently of Facebook, but maybe not: she was only there for a couple of days. Anyway, there is something to be said for a central clearinghouse of information relevant to your interests, your family, your friends. There are many problems with social media, but there are many positives as well.
  - criddell 8y ago
    Lots of people in the entertainment business are expected to be able to promote stuff via their social media channels. For example, if two actors are up for a role and one has a hundred followers and the other has a million, the more followed actor may have an edge. On a more personal level, you might not see your nephew's piano recital.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"and there is no high barrier to entry to compete" My gosh. Facebook and Google are printing billions - don't you think that there would be massive money pouring in to take a slice of that pie if it were possible? Google has a scale that makes them essentially unassailable. Even Microsoft can hardly make a dent. Facebook, a little different due to network externalizations. They are not like traditional monopolies, but they are de-facto monopolies. Google can bias search outcomes to favour any of their businesses, and this is a problem. Essentially, they shouldn't be allowed to verticals into any of it - in much the same way carriers shouldn't be allowed to own cable or entertainment business. They can be owned by the same parent, but they can't be in the same business. Facebook is a less essential resource and so many already do without it, it's likely on the decline I don't think we need to touch that one.
- themagician 8y ago
  There is a difference between being popular and being a monopoly.

stochastic_monk 8y ago

AT&T is a tech giant in precisely the same sense that Google is.

themagician 8y ago
AT&T controls infrastructure and has a monopoly in certain geographic areas. Google does not. Google has a monopoly on search, but that’s about it. There are alternatives though, some of which are as good or better in many ways.
- ghostly_s 8y ago
  In any meaningful sense, search is infrastructure now. So is email, etc.
- basilgohar 8y ago
  Google dominates search, but also dominates e-mail, mobile devices (less so, but still a major player), and is heavily involved in many other tech verticals. That they dominate isn't the problem. That they are leveraging their hegemony across all of these verticals to drive their main source of revenue, advertising, is where the concern comes. The fact is it is nearly impossible for a non-entrenched player to enter into the market without either being drowned our or bought-up by one of the big players is where the monopolistic concerns arise.
lotsofpulp 8y ago
Some people have no choice but to use ATT, it's the only way to get internet into their home. I can do everything I need to without Google, but not ATT.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  > I can do everything I need to without Google, but not ATT. I'm betting that you actually cannot. If you blacklisted Google's domains many sites would be inaccessible or broken due to reCaptcha, Google-hosted fonts/scripts, or ad-blocker blockers.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    That's true, but it feels different than owning the only telecommunications cable going into homes. I would actually classify wired and wireless internet providers as utilities since the capital costs are so enormous it's impossible for a new supplier to enter the market, but that may apply to Google too.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  I have some (more bio, less cs) colleagues who only distribute and edit in google documents. I don’t think avoiding all google services is exactly trivial.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gambler 8y ago

>You don’t need Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or any of that other crap. You didn't need Microsoft products in the 90s. Except you did if you wanted to do serious work. That's why they were targeted by antitrust regulation. Exactly the same situation here, except Facebook and co have much more control over their product and can directly influence public opinion, not just software.

whatshisface 8y ago
>Except you did if you wanted to do serious work. What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely?
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  > What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? If you're a company looking to advertise your product or service: the largest audience in the world.
- macintux 8y ago
  > What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? Accidental discovery of things important to you. I'm no fan of Facebook, but shortly after I signed up I found out that my sister, who was fighting cancer, was in the hospital again. I went to see her, and we had the best 1:1 talk we'd ever had. She passed away a few months later. Yes, in an ideal world I would have been in proactive contact with everyone and might have found out independently of Facebook, but maybe not: she was only there for a couple of days. Anyway, there is something to be said for a central clearinghouse of information relevant to your interests, your family, your friends. There are many problems with social media, but there are many positives as well.
- criddell 8y ago
  Lots of people in the entertainment business are expected to be able to promote stuff via their social media channels. For example, if two actors are up for a role and one has a hundred followers and the other has a million, the more followed actor may have an edge. On a more personal level, you might not see your nephew's piano recital.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"and there is no high barrier to entry to compete" My gosh. Facebook and Google are printing billions - don't you think that there would be massive money pouring in to take a slice of that pie if it were possible? Google has a scale that makes them essentially unassailable. Even Microsoft can hardly make a dent. Facebook, a little different due to network externalizations. They are not like traditional monopolies, but they are de-facto monopolies. Google can bias search outcomes to favour any of their businesses, and this is a problem. Essentially, they shouldn't be allowed to verticals into any of it - in much the same way carriers shouldn't be allowed to own cable or entertainment business. They can be owned by the same parent, but they can't be in the same business. Facebook is a less essential resource and so many already do without it, it's likely on the decline I don't think we need to touch that one.

themagician 8y ago
There is a difference between being popular and being a monopoly.