3 ms·

No. Google is different. They hold a monopoly on search that I think should be broken up. I have big problems with the power Google wields in finding things onl

No. Google is different. They hold a monopoly on search that I think should be broken up. I have big problems with the power Google wields in finding things online. But, going back to my previous comment, it would in a way be a good thing if Google started capriciously "disappearing" sites like this, in a high-profile manner. It would accelerate the move to other search providers and bring a more diversified Internet to us all. (I'm not advocating for it, but the end result would probably be better than what we have now: SEO madness all to please The One Algorithm.) Twitter has competition. Reddit, Facebook, Apple News, and traditional media outlets all disseminate information. They all offer notifications on your phone. Where we're typing this out is HN, which is another news dissemination and discussion service. The more Twitter does things to make it clear it's not a neutral platform, the more other services can find users. I do not want Twitter to be a monopoly platform. Tagging them with some common-carrier-like status, while allowing them to remain private, just entrenches that monopoly.

bigbubba 6y ago
The GP's Google example concerns thermostats, not search. Google doesn't have a thermostat monopoly. Is it therefore okay for Google to remotely deactivate the thermostats of people they've decided to dislike?
- function_seven 6y ago
  If they were just a thermostat company, then yeah. They could say “we don’t provide climate control services to the GOP”, or whatever. (Contact law covers how to handle refunds for devices already purchased, etc. I’m talking about the core issue of companies being able to choose their customers) But, because they have a monopoly in search, they can abuse it to dictate terms in other sectors. That’s what I have a problem with. It’s also a story we’ve seen recently, where some poor user gets their Google Cloud acct locked, and loses their YouTube videos as a result. Those stories are what convinced me that Google needs to be chopped up.
- thisiszilff 6y ago
  It isn't a very good comparison given that those thermostats/locks aren't free and it's unlikely Google wouldn't like someone because of how they are using their thermostat. In this case, twitter provides the account and the objections are to how the account is being used.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    Just because Twitter doesn't debit your bank account doesn't mean their service is free. They're selling you to any buyer who's willing to pay, and it's a lot of buyers. Just because these companies engage in fancy accounting doesn't mean we aren't consumers in a traditional sense and doesn't mean we waive rights consumers typically are given.
- judge2020 6y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if they already block access to nest.com or related APIs for users either residing in, or with an IP locating them in a US-sanctioned country.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    I'd not hold it against them if the government were forcing their hand.

bigbubba 6y ago

The GP's Google example concerns thermostats, not search. Google doesn't have a thermostat monopoly. Is it therefore okay for Google to remotely deactivate the thermostats of people they've decided to dislike?

function_seven 6y ago
If they were just a thermostat company, then yeah. They could say “we don’t provide climate control services to the GOP”, or whatever. (Contact law covers how to handle refunds for devices already purchased, etc. I’m talking about the core issue of companies being able to choose their customers) But, because they have a monopoly in search, they can abuse it to dictate terms in other sectors. That’s what I have a problem with. It’s also a story we’ve seen recently, where some poor user gets their Google Cloud acct locked, and loses their YouTube videos as a result. Those stories are what convinced me that Google needs to be chopped up.
thisiszilff 6y ago
It isn't a very good comparison given that those thermostats/locks aren't free and it's unlikely Google wouldn't like someone because of how they are using their thermostat. In this case, twitter provides the account and the objections are to how the account is being used.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  Just because Twitter doesn't debit your bank account doesn't mean their service is free. They're selling you to any buyer who's willing to pay, and it's a lot of buyers. Just because these companies engage in fancy accounting doesn't mean we aren't consumers in a traditional sense and doesn't mean we waive rights consumers typically are given.
judge2020 6y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they already block access to nest.com or related APIs for users either residing in, or with an IP locating them in a US-sanctioned country.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  I'd not hold it against them if the government were forcing their hand.