3 ms·

I think Google and Facebook ended up surpassing the old Microsoft evil, then regulators took the eyes of Microsoft, then after slowly testing the waters, they a

by TX81Z 3y ago

I think Google and Facebook ended up surpassing the old Microsoft evil, then regulators took the eyes of Microsoft, then after slowly testing the waters, they are going hardcore into all kinds of shady shit. Windows OS is basically just a wrapper for data mining for Microsoft’s very large, but ignored, adtech businesses (plural).

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
A reasonable assessment, IMHO. Each has followed the other. I have observed each of Google and Facebook seeming to believe it has the same sort of "leverage" over, e.g., national governments, as well as news organisations that produce content. A most recent instance is how Google responded to yet another government asking it to pay the country's news media for using their content as bait for ad targets^1. "OK then, we'll just prevent your citizens from accessing news through Google." This sort of "negotiation", read: lack thereof, really reeks of entitlement. 1. Purposely commercial usage, not merely "sharing a link" to some content on the web.
- TX81Z 3y ago
  The news stuff is more a cascade of interrelated failures between governments, news outlets, and tech companies. Governments do a bad job of funding news production, newspapers didn’t take the internet seriously and made a massive mess out of it, and the tech companies just sucked out the remaining value and killed news. The fact is the big tech companies make next to nothing on news. It’s rational to just stop doing it if the value goes negative. If government wants to levy a real tax and use that money to fund and support news, fine - but these laws are based on a mistaken premise that somebody is making buckets of money in news. Nobody is.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    "The fact is the big tech companies make next to nothing on news." Perhaps these so-called "tech" companies need the traffic generated by people reading and sharing news stories. It makes no sense for "Google News" to exist if it makes next to nothing. It would be "irrational". Google and Facebook keep track of every user navigation to a news story. The links are not direct. Of course this is for purely non-commercial purposes. Data collected is not used for commercial purposes. Yeah right. https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Google-Benefit-from-News-Content.pdf https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06... If it isn't valuable to Google to intermediate peoples' access to online news, then why doesn't Google stop doing it. IMO, the issue is not that content producers such as news organsations are asking too much, it's that they are asking at all. The so-called "tech" company "business model" only works if the company does not have to pay anyone for content. If every producer whose content is being used by these companies to support and generate revenue from advertising services suddenly starts demanding payment, no matter how small, these "Big Tech" companies and their Golden Goose are cooked.
worrycue 3y ago
Even when regulators do pay attention, see Activision buyout, they have no teeth.
- TX81Z 3y ago
  That was just really poor strategy by somebody who should not be in charge of the FTC. Major fuck up.

by TX81Z 3y ago

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

A reasonable assessment, IMHO. Each has followed the other. I have observed each of Google and Facebook seeming to believe it has the same sort of "leverage" over, e.g., national governments, as well as news organisations that produce content. A most recent instance is how Google responded to yet another government asking it to pay the country's news media for using their content as bait for ad targets^1. "OK then, we'll just prevent your citizens from accessing news through Google." This sort of "negotiation", read: lack thereof, really reeks of entitlement. 1. Purposely commercial usage, not merely "sharing a link" to some content on the web.

TX81Z 3y ago
The news stuff is more a cascade of interrelated failures between governments, news outlets, and tech companies. Governments do a bad job of funding news production, newspapers didn’t take the internet seriously and made a massive mess out of it, and the tech companies just sucked out the remaining value and killed news. The fact is the big tech companies make next to nothing on news. It’s rational to just stop doing it if the value goes negative. If government wants to levy a real tax and use that money to fund and support news, fine - but these laws are based on a mistaken premise that somebody is making buckets of money in news. Nobody is.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  "The fact is the big tech companies make next to nothing on news." Perhaps these so-called "tech" companies need the traffic generated by people reading and sharing news stories. It makes no sense for "Google News" to exist if it makes next to nothing. It would be "irrational". Google and Facebook keep track of every user navigation to a news story. The links are not direct. Of course this is for purely non-commercial purposes. Data collected is not used for commercial purposes. Yeah right. https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Google-Benefit-from-News-Content.pdf https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06... If it isn't valuable to Google to intermediate peoples' access to online news, then why doesn't Google stop doing it. IMO, the issue is not that content producers such as news organsations are asking too much, it's that they are asking at all. The so-called "tech" company "business model" only works if the company does not have to pay anyone for content. If every producer whose content is being used by these companies to support and generate revenue from advertising services suddenly starts demanding payment, no matter how small, these "Big Tech" companies and their Golden Goose are cooked.

worrycue 3y ago

Even when regulators do pay attention, see Activision buyout, they have no teeth.

TX81Z 3y ago
That was just really poor strategy by somebody who should not be in charge of the FTC. Major fuck up.