4 ms·

Great, and then we can properly break up Facebook as well as Google. I see no downsides here.

by kibwen 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago
Break them? More likely they'll continue their business as usual, with a slightly increased lobbying spending.
- kibwen 3y ago
  And yet somehow Apple hasn't managed to lobby this away, despite having more cash on hand than either Facebook or Google.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Apple spends very little money lobbying. For example, they don't appear in Open Secrets's top lobbying firms: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=2022 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Apple has never been as big in lobbying as those are. Or as cooperative with various governments and state agencies. Plus, they have those angles covered by token "open" BS like Android allowing sideloading, despite having total dominance on far more crucial for consumers and the economy in general areas that their OS, leaving Apple to be targeted.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      According to Statista, Google spent $10.92 million on lobbying in 2022, whereas Apple spent $9.36 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expenses-of-apple/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expense... https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses... Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.
      - pb7 3y ago
        Okay? No one thinks they would. We're in a business transaction.
      - shuckles 3y ago
        Maybe people are going to bat for their own interests and recognize they align with the interests of a company they happily buy products from. Who are you to deny their preferences?
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Those are the over the table numbers. >Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died. I care if my prefered mobile OS were to allow any kind of crap. How about that? Mind blown?
HWR_14 3y ago
Why should we have to let things get worse. Break up Meta and Google and MS and then talk to me about how we don't need Apple's store anymore. Don't remove the solution and then tell me you'll fix the problem later.
- kibwen 3y ago
  This same argument can be used to block any action, forever. We have to start somewhere, and here is good enough.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    So you do see downsides but you are personally willing to live with them?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      It’s hard to believe this question was asked in good faith. What did they write that makes you think they admitted to there being downsides?
      - shuckles 3y ago
        The commenter started by saying they didn't see any downsides. Someone replied referring to specific downsides which impacted them (""use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"). Then the commenter said downsides don't matter because they can be used to argue against any change. That's a different argument than where they started.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp" They replied to the comment which said this and wrote, "I see no downsides." I don’t see where they admitted to the downsides.
root_axis 3y ago
I don't see what breaking up Google or Facebook accomplishes, it changes absolutely nothing for consumers.
- esarbe 3y ago
  It changes at least one thing; now there is Google1 and Google2 and FB1 and FB2 and they offer the same services to different prices. Now the consumer can chose between more competitors.
- matwood 3y ago
  Almost every item you buy online has some Google 'tax' baked in. That alone isn't a problem, but since Google controls almost the entire ad market, there isn't any competition pushing that tax down. Notice the similarity to the App Store arguments? If Google and YouTube were split up, I could see a future where both start competing for text and video search against each other. This competition would drive down ad rates across both platforms. It would also allow space for other competitors to come in.
esarbe 3y ago
Yes, please, let's do this. And Amazon too. In general; let's take that whole monopoly thing serious again, together with regulatory capture. I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is *good* and we should have more competition between these huge companies that basically make a living from extracting rent.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is good You sound at least a little bit as though you understand markets, though!
  - esarbe 3y ago
    I strive to learn. With markets I see it similarly as with democracy; it's the best of all the bad options we have. Given the challenges ahead (demographic crisis, climate crisis, environmental crisis) we must have a dynamic and flexible system to accommodate the to be expected strains, if we want to continue existing as a global civilization. But markets also have flaws, such as externalization of costs and oligopolies that skew the market through their influence. We've seen this with Google, that has started as a brilliant search engine, providing a valuable service. Nowadays it attempts to make more and more money through rent taking instead. Instead of creating value, these oligopolies capture value, sometimes even through illegal means (see; no-poaching agreements).

Great, and then we can properly break up Facebook as well as Google. I see no downsides here.

by kibwen 3y ago

Great, and then we can properly break up Facebook as well as Google. I see no downsides here.

coldtea 3y ago

Break them? More likely they'll continue their business as usual, with a slightly increased lobbying spending.

kibwen 3y ago
And yet somehow Apple hasn't managed to lobby this away, despite having more cash on hand than either Facebook or Google.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Apple spends very little money lobbying. For example, they don't appear in Open Secrets's top lobbying firms: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=2022 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...
- coldtea 3y ago
  Apple has never been as big in lobbying as those are. Or as cooperative with various governments and state agencies. Plus, they have those angles covered by token "open" BS like Android allowing sideloading, despite having total dominance on far more crucial for consumers and the economy in general areas that their OS, leaving Apple to be targeted.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    According to Statista, Google spent $10.92 million on lobbying in 2022, whereas Apple spent $9.36 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expenses-of-apple/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expense... https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses... Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.
    - pb7 3y ago
      Okay? No one thinks they would. We're in a business transaction.
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Maybe people are going to bat for their own interests and recognize they align with the interests of a company they happily buy products from. Who are you to deny their preferences?
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Those are the over the table numbers. >Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died. I care if my prefered mobile OS were to allow any kind of crap. How about that? Mind blown?

HWR_14 3y ago

Why should we have to let things get worse. Break up Meta and Google and MS and then talk to me about how we don't need Apple's store anymore. Don't remove the solution and then tell me you'll fix the problem later.

kibwen 3y ago
This same argument can be used to block any action, forever. We have to start somewhere, and here is good enough.
- shuckles 3y ago
  So you do see downsides but you are personally willing to live with them?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    It’s hard to believe this question was asked in good faith. What did they write that makes you think they admitted to there being downsides?
    - shuckles 3y ago
      The commenter started by saying they didn't see any downsides. Someone replied referring to specific downsides which impacted them (""use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"). Then the commenter said downsides don't matter because they can be used to argue against any change. That's a different argument than where they started.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp" They replied to the comment which said this and wrote, "I see no downsides." I don’t see where they admitted to the downsides.

root_axis 3y ago

I don't see what breaking up Google or Facebook accomplishes, it changes absolutely nothing for consumers.

esarbe 3y ago
It changes at least one thing; now there is Google1 and Google2 and FB1 and FB2 and they offer the same services to different prices. Now the consumer can chose between more competitors.
matwood 3y ago
Almost every item you buy online has some Google 'tax' baked in. That alone isn't a problem, but since Google controls almost the entire ad market, there isn't any competition pushing that tax down. Notice the similarity to the App Store arguments? If Google and YouTube were split up, I could see a future where both start competing for text and video search against each other. This competition would drive down ad rates across both platforms. It would also allow space for other competitors to come in.

esarbe 3y ago

Yes, please, let's do this. And Amazon too. In general; let's take that whole monopoly thing serious again, together with regulatory capture. I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is *good* and we should have more competition between these huge companies that basically make a living from extracting rent.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is good You sound at least a little bit as though you understand markets, though!
- esarbe 3y ago
  I strive to learn. With markets I see it similarly as with democracy; it's the best of all the bad options we have. Given the challenges ahead (demographic crisis, climate crisis, environmental crisis) we must have a dynamic and flexible system to accommodate the to be expected strains, if we want to continue existing as a global civilization. But markets also have flaws, such as externalization of costs and oligopolies that skew the market through their influence. We've seen this with Google, that has started as a brilliant search engine, providing a valuable service. Nowadays it attempts to make more and more money through rent taking instead. Instead of creating value, these oligopolies capture value, sometimes even through illegal means (see; no-poaching agreements).