- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Anti-trust laws have been used for AT&T, MS, Std Oil. Why not Google, Facebook, etc.?
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:33 am to MrLarson
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:33 am to MrLarson
quote:
Are you suggesting these companies offer equal ad space for companies in the same market?
Ah. Now I get your point.
No. My issue is my options for effective advertising.
My main location is hosting the first compaign stop for Scott Walker's reelection in 2018 next Monday. He announces his campaign the day before.
To reach my target audience for this online, Facebook and Google are really the only options. They are effective, convenient, and pretty cheap. I really don't have a complaint with their service or price for my purpose, although I am trying not to be paranoid that my placements for machines seem to be generating much more reach than for an event for a GOP governor.
What DOES concern me is the stuff the Chive post exemplifies or the demonetizing of YouTube channels. In the case of the latter, if what you want to post is something they don't like, then you face censoring. Remember the flap about newsfeeds leading up to the election?
0
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:34 am to MrCarton
quote:
quote:
Let's hear your credentials, home slice. I walked out of a lecture with the DoJ anti-trust expert witness in one of the biggest anti-trust cases in American history not less than two hours ago.
Do you have even the slightest clue of what you're talking about here, or are you, as usual, full of shite?
Lol. There is a slim chance that anyone else on this board is as close to this issue as you are right now.
Are you interested in cryptocurrency regulation at all?
A bit, brother - not too well-read on cryptos other than a brief glance at some of their core economic properties (Are they a pure currency? A hybrid VC-style equity/currency? A hybrid commodity/currency?).
Demand-side economies of scale are going to be absolutely massive in that space, but it sounds to me like the current argument boils down to actual economic utility versus pure reserve of wealth. I simply don't know enough about the tech to say intelligently which method is the best path forward.
I will say that crypto will almost certainly be a natural monopoly/winner-take-all. Almost no question in my mind about that.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:41 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
I will say that crypto will almost certainly be a natural monopoly/winner-take-all. Almost no question in my mind about that.
Turning in, now.
Sure wish there was a monster under my bed to take my mind of this scary as shite outlook.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:43 am to MrLarson
quote:
Which seems what the OP suggests.
Not sure I was. I'm just bitching that these outlets control what we think by deciding what we see.
Anyway, good stuff on this thread for me to read tomorrow. Thanks, guys.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:48 am to Ag Zwin
quote:
I don't get the analogy. Budweiser is a producer. How much ad space they buy has no affect on other brewers.
If I want to reach an audience online, I generally have to pay Google and/or Facebook.
You could argue that what they do makes my life much easier, which is closer to the Amazon analogy. That Prime is a hell of a drug.
How does the Bud analogy apply?
So I think the argument that Facebook would (maybe fairly - I don't have the numbers right in front of me) make would be that ad buying as an industry is a huge industry of which they are only a part. You have physical outdoor ads, online ads, television ads, newspaper ads, etc. Even within the internet ad space, there are hundreds or thousands of sites that have huge ad reach. Facebook most likely isn't even close to a monopolist here.
Again - a market definition problem.
I hope that makes sense. The top of the top economists are trying to solve this problem at the moment because it is immensely important in the long run, but defining what is and what isn't a market (the actual players in the market) is absolutely critical in these discussions. Good attorneys and opposing economists would eviscerate anything but a well-documented argument.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 12:48 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
A bit, brother - not too well-read on cryptos other than a brief glance at some of their core economic properties (Are they a pure currency? A hybrid VC-style equity/currency? A hybrid commodity/currency?).
Demand-side economies of scale are going to be absolutely massive in that space, but it sounds to me like the current argument boils down to actual economic utility versus pure reserve of wealth. I simply don't know enough about the tech to say intelligently which method is the best path forward.
I will say that crypto will almost certainly be a natural monopoly/winner-take-all. Almost no question in my mind about that.
It's super interesting stuff. I first learned about it here actually. One of the resident austro-libertarians was big into bitcoin and talked about it a lot. He was laughed at constantly, but since then, BTC is up about 5k. He is probably chilling on his own private island right now.
My first instinct was to feel like there would be a winner take all scenario in crypto, but over the last few years I've seen a dramatic growth in the potential use-cases for them. There will probably be more than one "currency" that can maintain sizable market share, but most of these tokens are not intended to act as currency for p2p transactions. The term "cryptocurrency" probably needs to go away. It really does not describe what these technologies are all about.
The key to this technology is that they represent cryptographically engineered, immutable, "open distributed ledgers" that allow user to make changes to a common digital ledger that are visible to anyone with access to the internet. If you ever struggled to keep an excel document updated between more than 1 party, then you can see how useful it is to have a shared document that anyone can modify (within the programmed parameters) among all users. Logistics/transportation/peer to peer cash transactions are just a few economic activities that will be shifting onto distributed ledger technology. I've heard rumors that the military is investigating the idea as part of a DOD wide upgrade to the supply system. It would be incredible if one could register a transaction of equipment on an immutable ledger instantly with just a QR code and account number. Maybe they can finally stop printing out 100 page property books LOL.
From a regulatory standpoint, it's going to be a nightmare, because defining this sector will be impossible. It isn't simply a replacement for cash or bank credits that can be regulated like other currency transactions. There is already an initiative in the SEC to crackdown on the sale of these tokens, as many companies have designed their own coins or tokens and released them through an "initial coin offering" that is very similar to an unregulated Initial Public Offering. It's been wild following this stuff over the last few years. It's exploding.
If you have any free time at all, I recommend that you take a look and see if it interests you. It's still very very early. I've been told about a number of "job" offers for companies looking to get access to "high risk" foreign markets that are ripe for unregulated services such as insurance and community banking. There is a lot of room for people with people skills (unsurprisingly in short supply in the developer world) and even a basic grasp of economics. Interesting stuff.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 5:27 am to Ag Zwin
quote:
Why not Google,
Maybe not in the US, but Google was slapped with a $2b fine in the EU for being anti-competitive.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 5:59 am to Ag Zwin
Of course not, check who their political donations go to.
Are you mad? (insane, not angry)
Are you mad? (insane, not angry)
Posted on 10/31/17 at 6:30 am to Ag Zwin
They will not be broken up because they are like a wet dream for the intel community. It is like everyone started keeping a diary of their deepest, darkest secrets that can be referenced at will by the government. Instead of thinking about the internet like it is a GUI to the www, it actually is a GUI into your mind. Your friends, your interests, you opinions, your perversions, your proclivities, your politics and opinions... why would they ever do anything to break that up?
Posted on 10/31/17 at 6:35 am to Ag Zwin
Google and facebook are not necessary commodities and they don't directly charge consumers.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 6:36 am to Loserman
quote:
Google and facebook are not necessary commodities and they don't directly charge consumers.
They merely corner the advertising market if you want to advertise on that sort of platform.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 7:32 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:I honestly think his issue is related to your comments wanting Brian Kelly fired last season. He mentioned it last week in a thread or two on the MSB.
Let's hear your credentials, home slice.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:50 am to Loserman
quote:
Google and facebook are not necessary commodities and they don't directly charge consumers.
Unless you consider that their real "customers" (i.e., their source of revenue) are advertisers like me who see them as the only outlets with the reach you need to be effective. Like I said earlier, they are convenient, cheap, and effective. Not a big issue for me as an advertiser, although I am paranoid that my ad for hosting Scott Walker's campaign launch is not getting the exposure I want.
The issue I have is their power over what viewers and searchers find and read.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News