- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does anyone feel the government's crack down on big tech is unfair?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:24 pm to slackster
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:24 pm to slackster
quote:
If they went after a company like Koch it would be a witch hunt.
Do you even know what the Koch companies do, or is that just a name you heard on MSNBC?
1
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:25 pm to cubsfan5150
or when the big tech company copies a start up and presto, no one uses the startup's product i.e snapchat
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:26 pm to agregime1
They’re libtards
Shut em down
Shut em down
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:27 pm to PowerTool
quote:
Do you even know what the Koch companies do, or is that just a name you heard on MSNBC?
Koch would be a terrible example of a monopoly, but they're a great example of a conservative leaning company, which was my point.
Do you know any conservative leaning monopolies?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:31 pm to ProbyOne
quote:
That’s fine when the decisions they are making are in view of the public. Shadow banning and deranking aren’t and could easily impact elections given the reach of any one of Twitter/FB/YouTube.
Regulate regulate regulate.
Whenever a company falls on the opposite side of your political spectrum, look to the government for help, right?
If Google/YouTube wants to derank and block every conservative source out there, so be it. What right does the government have to tell them otherwise?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:33 pm to agregime1
I welcome it.
Bought some tech stocks yesterday and already made a killing.
Nothing will come out of it
Bought some tech stocks yesterday and already made a killing.
Nothing will come out of it
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:36 pm to prplhze2000
What was the start up? Snap chat wasn't just bought by the large company?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:47 pm to cubsfan5150
quote:
Calling another company a monopoly because they are buying up every competitor or any technology that could make someone become a competitor, then it's not bullshite.
Where is this happening among Facebook, Google, etc?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:48 pm to agregime1
This article provided an extremely thorough examination:
LINK
Really long article, but some interesting points. Here is the part that is relevant to the justifications behind antitrust scrutiny:
TL;DR: Facebook has an insane share of the market and has made moves (good moves!) that have had anticompetitive results. We are now in a place where there is little to no room for competitors.
Generally, people who want to "break" Facebook up suggest (as this article does) that the FTC reverse the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, and have these two entities operate separate from Facebook.
LINK
Really long article, but some interesting points. Here is the part that is relevant to the justifications behind antitrust scrutiny:
quote:
The F.T.C.’s biggest mistake was to allow Facebook to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp. In 2012, the newer platforms were nipping at Facebook’s heels because they had been built for the smartphone, where Facebook was still struggling to gain traction. Mark responded by buying them, and the F.T.C. approved.
quote:
Neither Instagram nor WhatsApp had any meaningful revenue, but both were incredibly popular. The Instagram acquisition guaranteed Facebook would preserve its dominance in photo networking, and WhatsApp gave it a new entry into mobile real-time messaging. Now, the founders of Instagram and WhatsApp have left the company after clashing with Mark over his management of their platforms. But their former properties remain Facebook’s, driving much of its recent growth.
quote:
When it hasn’t acquired its way to dominance, Facebook has used its monopoly position to shut out competing companies or has copied their technology.
quote:
The News Feed algorithm reportedly prioritized videos created through Facebook over videos from competitors, like YouTube and Vimeo. In 2012, Twitter introduced a video network called Vine that featured six-second videos. That same day, Facebook blocked Vine from hosting a tool that let its users search for their Facebook friends while on the new network. The decision hobbled Vine, which shut down four years later.
quote:
Snapchat posed a different threat. Snapchat’s Stories and impermanent messaging options made it an attractive alternative to Facebook and Instagram. And unlike Vine, Snapchat wasn’t interfacing with the Facebook ecosystem; there was no obvious way to handicap the company or shut it out. So Facebook simply copied it.
quote:
Facebook’s version of Snapchat’s stories and disappearing messages proved wildly successful, at Snapchat’s expense. At an all-hands meeting in 2016, Mark told Facebook employees not to let their pride get in the way of giving users what they want. According to Wired magazine, “Zuckerberg’s message became an informal slogan at Facebook: ‘Don’t be too proud to copy.’”
quote:
As a result of all this, would-be competitors can’t raise the money to take on Facebook. Investors realize that if a company gets traction, Facebook will copy its innovations, shut it down or acquire it for a relatively modest sum. So despite an extended economic expansion, increasing interest in high-tech start-ups, an explosion of venture capital and growing public distaste for Facebook, no major social networking company has been founded since the fall of 2011.
quote:
As markets become more concentrated, the number of new start-up businesses declines. This holds true in other high-tech areas dominated by single companies, like search (controlled by Google) and e-commerce (taken over by Amazon). Meanwhile, there has been plenty of innovation in areas where there is no monopolistic domination, such as in workplace productivity (Slack, Trello, Asana), urban transportation (Lyft, Uber, Lime, Bird) and cryptocurrency exchanges (Ripple, Coinbase, Circle).
TL;DR: Facebook has an insane share of the market and has made moves (good moves!) that have had anticompetitive results. We are now in a place where there is little to no room for competitors.
Generally, people who want to "break" Facebook up suggest (as this article does) that the FTC reverse the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, and have these two entities operate separate from Facebook.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 5:55 pm to slackster
quote:
Whenever a company falls on the opposite side of your political spectrum, look to the government for help, right?
No actually, not all of us are partisan hacks. I pointed out that “muh free market” doesn’t always work, and this is a great example.
Why should I be ok with the unprecedented ability of these corporations to manipulate social and political behavior SECRETLY? You also realize that China, Saudi, Russia, etc influence these companies from both a political and investor standpoint as well?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:00 pm to agregime1
quote:
These guys in congress might be to old to understand this unfortunately.
Maybe you’re too young to understand it as well.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:01 pm to Newc
quote:
Generally, people who want to "break" Facebook up suggest (as this article does) that the FTC reverse the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, and have these two entities operate separate from Facebook.
That's just asinine IMO. I know you're just summarizing the sides, and it's not necessarily your opinion.
Twitter is a massive competitor to FB. Snap Chat has 190 million DAUs and a $15B market valuation.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:02 pm to ProbyOne
quote:
Why should I be ok with the unprecedented ability of these corporations to manipulate social and political behavior SECRETLY?
What business does the government have to tell you otherwise?
ETA - what specific antitrust argument are you trying to make? This entire thing is nothing more than a political shakedown (from both sides)
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:10 pm to slackster
I don't really care to opine on the issue - frankly, I am not knowledgeable enough to do so - but the reversal wouldn't be retroactive (and so wouldn't be that asinine). What would happen is the FTC would order Facebook to "split" into three companies, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp - which would thereafter compete with one another. Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp would have separate boards, separate governance, etc. Shareholders of Facebook would become shareholders of Instagram and WhatsApp in equal proportions (and historically, these situations are beneficial to shareholders and increase value). In other words, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp would be forced to compete with one another.
I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse in your eyes - but I figured I ought to explain.
One of the biggest issues, and I'm not sure how this fits in with the Sherman/Clayton Acts, pertains to the fact that Facebook controls so much information - by way of example, and how this article discusses, Facebook decided whether or not Facebook would censor certain political activity in other countries - without any guidance. Really, that is absolutely crazy, and borders on - and potentially crosses into - a foreign policy role. Facebook has developed into a monster that has so much power - and keeps on growing, to the extent that people become more disenfranchised with national news and local news goes the way of the do-do. The whole thing is just a mess.
I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse in your eyes - but I figured I ought to explain.
One of the biggest issues, and I'm not sure how this fits in with the Sherman/Clayton Acts, pertains to the fact that Facebook controls so much information - by way of example, and how this article discusses, Facebook decided whether or not Facebook would censor certain political activity in other countries - without any guidance. Really, that is absolutely crazy, and borders on - and potentially crosses into - a foreign policy role. Facebook has developed into a monster that has so much power - and keeps on growing, to the extent that people become more disenfranchised with national news and local news goes the way of the do-do. The whole thing is just a mess.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 6:12 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:22 pm to agregime1
quote:
Does anyone feel the government's crack down on big tech is unfair?
It's a crock of shite like almost every other thing coming out of Washington.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 6:25 pm to Newc
quote:
I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse in your eyes - but I figured I ought to explain.
Thabk you for the explanation but I understand how the break up would work. I simply don't believe the justification is there.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 7:42 pm to slackster
It happened in 2012 with Facebook buying Instagram when they knew they'd take a lick when Instagram inevitably got big. They KNEW Instagram would explode. They knew that if they could buy it early, then they could buy it cheap (relatively speaking), and they knew if they didn't buy it, then they'd be compromised: It is the quintessential example of a monopoly.
It happened with Instagram when Instagram saw snapchat was exploding in popularity with nuclear tenacity: They (Instagram) instated their "story" feature, which mimics snapchat's user interface, and succeeded in stamping out a possible competitor- and that is not my opinion, it is an unquestionable fact from experts of the marketplace. Their sole reason for implementing it was because they were getting their arses kicked.
But you don't want to see the examples. You only want to see and believe what's safe, and what fits your narrative, and for that I commend you, oh follower of the shepherd.
I'm a staunch libertarian- I despise the federal government- but when I'm FOR the federal government, I'm fiercely for it, and one example of where a federal, democratically republican government is completely justified in its intervention of private citizens and society is to crush monopolies.
That won't matter to you, though, you're a "revolutionary," remember? You "go against the grain" and think separately from pop culture, remember? You're not a part of the hot-air-blowing-ignorant minority, remember? Surely if that were the case, if you really were thinking for yourself, you wouldn't be agreeing with some mindless, soulless, paid cuck that lives in Beverly Hills and is "GlOwInG" in the magazines that women buy at the grocery store.
Everything these monopolies stand for is against everything that the common man is. Problem is, they've taken sides- the side of the one whom they know is in power and will eventually be in total control- and you eat that chit up because they fit a "square" narrative in your "round" ideology and fool the f*ck out of people like you.
People who don't believe these companies are the bane of our existence are the epitome of a fool. Good riddance to them all, and you are no exception, you sheep.
It happened with Instagram when Instagram saw snapchat was exploding in popularity with nuclear tenacity: They (Instagram) instated their "story" feature, which mimics snapchat's user interface, and succeeded in stamping out a possible competitor- and that is not my opinion, it is an unquestionable fact from experts of the marketplace. Their sole reason for implementing it was because they were getting their arses kicked.
But you don't want to see the examples. You only want to see and believe what's safe, and what fits your narrative, and for that I commend you, oh follower of the shepherd.
I'm a staunch libertarian- I despise the federal government- but when I'm FOR the federal government, I'm fiercely for it, and one example of where a federal, democratically republican government is completely justified in its intervention of private citizens and society is to crush monopolies.
That won't matter to you, though, you're a "revolutionary," remember? You "go against the grain" and think separately from pop culture, remember? You're not a part of the hot-air-blowing-ignorant minority, remember? Surely if that were the case, if you really were thinking for yourself, you wouldn't be agreeing with some mindless, soulless, paid cuck that lives in Beverly Hills and is "GlOwInG" in the magazines that women buy at the grocery store.
Everything these monopolies stand for is against everything that the common man is. Problem is, they've taken sides- the side of the one whom they know is in power and will eventually be in total control- and you eat that chit up because they fit a "square" narrative in your "round" ideology and fool the f*ck out of people like you.
People who don't believe these companies are the bane of our existence are the epitome of a fool. Good riddance to them all, and you are no exception, you sheep.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 7:43 pm to agregime1
No, because Big Tech is cracking down you to an unprecedented degree in American history.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 10:45 pm to Bigbee Hills
quote:
That won't matter to you, though, you're a "revolutionary," remember? You "go against the grain" and think separately from pop culture, remember? You're not a part of the hot-air-blowing-ignorant minority, remember? Surely if that were the case, if you really were thinking for yourself, you wouldn't be agreeing with some mindless, soulless, paid cuck that lives in Beverly Hills and is "GlOwInG" in the magazines that women buy at the grocery store.
, what? quote:
Everything these monopolies stand for is against everything that the common man is. Problem is, they've taken sides- the side of the one whom they know is in power and will eventually be in total control- and you eat that chit up because they fit a "square" narrative in your "round" ideology and fool the f*ck out of people like you.
I'd have the EXACT same opinion if Zuckerberg was Rush Limbaugh Jr. My opinion doesn't waver simply because I dislike their political stance.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News