US Politics Mega-thread - Page 856

On October 19 2018 02:12 Plansix wrote:

Why wouldn't you want to break up Facebook? They dominate the internet and digital communication landscape. They own Instagram, which is the second most popular social media service in the US. They own the most popular chat service in Europe. Their revenue per year outpaces the budgets for all but the most wealthy states in the US. How much more dominate do they need to become?

On October 19 2018 03:33 Logo wrote:


For what it's worth Facebook didn't invent Instagram or WhatsApp.

Also Office and IE aren't novel products, both are predated by other software that does the same thing. There's nothing innovative about either of them.

On October 19 2018 03:59 Plansix wrote:
The reason Windows got anti-trusted by congress was because they were forcing companies to install windows internet net explorer on all machines that came with windows. And some other ways early windows was designed. Web browsers were not free in the dial up era of the internet.

In the case of Facebook, the market share of the company is so huge that is equal to one of the three major religions in size. And that doesn’t include Instagrams 800 million users. Facebook is so dominate that the best way alert people to that dominance is to post on Facebook or Instagram. There is no other media service with even close to the same reach.

Also, Facebook is designed to be addictive to use. High level managers and directors have been beating that drum for a while now. Over the years Facebook has spent a lot of money studying the physiology of using their service and creating an addictive feedback loop.

There isn’t a part of Facebook you can dig into a feel good about. They are a service that is so data hungry that they will make data profiles for people who don’t use Facebook, but live with Facebook users. Their ad delivery programs are so complex that Facebook often can’t tell why someone received a specific ad.

On October 19 2018 06:00 Excludos wrote:


Big aquisitions are obviously something that should always be looked into as they happen. They are more often than not a bad ideas that stifles competition.

I was more thinking in terms of the Microsoft examples here. Believe it or not both Office and IE are innovative products, people just forget that they are 30 years old as well. To use to slippery slope argument, why these products? Why not split google+ from google? Should Chrome and Google search engine be the same company? If you keep going down this road, companies will simply just stop attempting to innovate in fear of just losing the product and part of their company in the process. I sure as hell wouldn't waste money down the drain like that.

On October 19 2018 06:11 buhhy wrote:


So what you're actually saying here is that we should break up big religion first since it is far more influential, caused far more grief and suffering over history, and is typically used to misinform and control the population?

Facebook is ephemeral at that time frame, it will come and go. I don't really see the worry.

On October 19 2018 05:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Breaking up facebook bears no relation to the issue of facebook and other internet companies being a vehicle used to spread misinformation and hate speech.

On October 19 2018 06:13 Plansix wrote:

I don’t see any problem with the questions you just asked. Why not split up chrome and google? How does it hurt me if suddenly the only relevant search engine doesn’t also have its own browser and massive email client? As someone who grew up in the era the pre-HTML era with BBSs and Usnet, I don’t have much a problem with an internet that sometimes fights with itself.

And internet explorer wasn’t that impressive. Netscape existed and we were all cool. And frankly, people were didn’t used to like the idea of using a browser made by the company that created the operating system. They didn’t like one company controlling every aspect of the computer they owned.

Finally, fearing the goverment isn't a bad thing. Companies should ask themselves if a product is a good idea holistically. Otherwise we get companies like Uber, who pass off regulation dodging and an unsustainable business model as innovation. Or Apple talking about the courage to remove the headphone jack.


No.

On October 19 2018 06:39 buhhy wrote:


That's exactly what I would say to your own alarmist tirade against tech companies.

The Microsoft anti-trust did absolutely nothing btw. The US one was a slap on the wrist and the EU one came too late to have any effect. You know what actually changed the browser landscape? Building a better browser. IE was actually pretty good in its heyday, certainly better than netscape, which you had to pay for. Then IE6 stagnated and Firefox started gaining steam. Then Firefox stagnated and Chrome came onto the scene. Now Chrome is starting to stagnate, and is ripe to be disrupted.

Zero government intervention needed.

On October 19 2018 06:31 Plansix wrote:
Dangermousecatdog is from the UK, so it is pretty easy for him to come up with legally enforceable metric for what constitutes hate speech.

The framing of Hate Speech as some legally unknowable is a red herring, as even the US legally defines what constitutes prohibited speech. And none of these legal metrics are applicable to the problems created by social media networks, as they are gathering places for hate groups and platforms for un-moderated harassment.

And the fear of some echo chamber a further red herring, as we already exist in siloed groups. Facebook, google and other social media keep us in software enforced echo chambers. The online reality of a Kentucky conservative does not even come close to the online reality I see every day. Any fears of an echo chamber are moot, we already live in one.

But over the months, the balance shifted heavily in favor of the government. In fact, Microsoft's problems began well before the trial opened in October 1998. It misjudged the legal trouble that its own e-mail and other documents could create. It chose not to reach an out-of-court settlement when the sanctions it faced were a wrist-slap compared with the breakup plan it now confronts -- though those decisions, given the company's conviction that it would win on appeal, were a calculated gamble. Whether that gamble pays off will not be known for months, or years.

In court, however, the Microsoft defense stumbled repeatedly. And with each misstep, the government was emboldened.

The prosecutors assembled and then presented their case with ever greater confidence, continually broadening it to embrace a far richer array of charges than the one that started it all: Microsoft's decision to tie a Web browser to the Windows operating system.

As the case progressed, the government presented evidence to show that Microsoft had bullied friends and competitors alike, halting innovations that threatened its Windows monopoly. And as the allegations spilled out in court, Microsoft was increasingly on its heels as it tried to argue that all the government had really shown was that the company was a rough-and-tumble competitor, not an economic outlaw.

On October 19 2018 06:58 buhhy wrote:


Echo chambers are natural, I agree, so that's why I said there is nothing to do about them.

I'm not sure what you mean by software-enforced echo chambers. You aren't limited to joining any specific group, only given suggestions similar to what you already consume. Basically you live in an echo chamber of your own making. You are fully free to seek out other groups, just like in real life. Plus people generally reject any dissenting viewpoint to their own, making them seek out supportive viewpoints, so I'm not sure presenting unsolicited opposing viewpoints even does anything.

Facebook and Google are already incentivized via their users to remove extremely hateful contents. It's also possible to get websites delisted through legal means. So what's the reason for additional regulation?

On October 19 2018 06:48 Plansix wrote:

This is factually incorrect. Leadership at Microsoft who have since retired have said in interviews the anti-trust case influenced the direction of the company going forward. Every decision they made was done with the intent of avoiding even the appearance of anti-competitive behaviors. It also changed the make up of Windows, since Microsoft would bury user desktop icons and short cuts for software they considered competitors before the anti-trust case. Microsoft was designing their operating system to favor their software by making it more user friendly up until that point. This is all documented in the anti-trust case and isn't disputable.

On October 19 2018 07:17 Plansix wrote:

This argument assumes a level of computer literacy and understanding of Facebooks and Google's algorithm that the average American citizen does not have. Facebook system specifically favors engagement over all other metrics, which means that the most commented and views post rise to the top of people's feeds. Many US citizens are only passively aware of this, but receive much of their news through Facebook while being unaware that the news they are being shown is not the breaking news of the day, but the news with teh highest engagement of people in their "group". Because Facebook also groups people with similar interests for marketing purposes. This encourages a fragmenting of the population to be served up ads and news catered toward their interest. Conservatives have claimed Facebook represses their news stories, but recent reports have shown otherwise due to the sensational nature of their coverage being pushed to a hungry audience that using that as their primary news source. Which is fine, except that we are talking about our democracy, not celebrity tabloids.

Facebook peddles tabloid style news as if it is quality reporting because it has no editorial input, intentionally. Because Facebook has over 2 billion users and from reports, only 20,000 people working to moderate it world wide. Which is essentially unmoderated at that scale. But their marketing behavior makes it seem like there is some level of quality control over their news feed that simply does not exist.

And I hate to be the old man in the thread, but I used the internet when it wasn't like this. The internet as shaped by Facebook and google are not the natural progression of our online spaces. It is just the one that favors them commercially.

I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it is applicable:

Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy?

Spoilers: The question the title asks is never answered. Zuckerberg is so hopelessly naive that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. He clings to the belief that he is running some scrappy start up and his ego won't let go of control to more responsible people. He is so introverted that even the highest people in Facebook can't challenge his direction for the company. These people are just the next version of Bill Gates and Steven Ballmer of the 1990s with better PR and a weaker congress.

On October 19 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:
Too big to fail is a bit of myth in this day and age, small upstarts can come in a crush giants. Just ask blockbuster and now GE.

That being said I'm a fan of regulation. I think the best way for things to operate is privately with public oversight. I'm not a huge fan of government running to much other than the necessities as I have first hand seen the bloat.