Quote:

---

Possible solution: STOP USING GOOGLE?

---

No, that's not the solution.

Monopolists behave the way they do, even when it seems counter-intuitive to their financial interests, simply because they can.

You may not be old enough to remember Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company. If you wanted a phone line to your house or business, your only choice was Ma Bell. That ended when the ant-trust laws were used to bust up the giant company. Was Ma Bell really that pernicious? Not really but having the power is enough to trigger anti-trust concerns.

There is no such thing as a benign monopoly being sustained over time.

Dad said:

---

Quick, someone google what percentage of searches use google's search engine.

I used it for 100% of my searches until today. Now I am aiming for 0%.

---

That's a 0% for me dog.

Rapier108 said:

---

Under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a monopoly doesn't have to mean it controls 100% of the market.

It simply means it controls enough of the market to exert undue influence and control over the marketplace, to the detriment of consumers and competitors.

Standard Oil was never a monopoly, but it was broken up anyway. In 1880, they did have around 90% of the US refining capacity, but by the time it was broken up in 1911, that was down to around 60%, mostly thanks to the new oil companies, especially in Texas and California. The decline would have continued with the rapid increase in the demand for oil, which Standard Oil could never have come close to meeting, while their competitors had much greater room to expand.

Using the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States as a basis, Google should be broken up.

Chrome/Android
Search Engine
Advertising Services
Other Web Services (Gmail, Docs, etc.)
YouTube

---

Well stated, I would add that each of the above should be individually broken up.

The alternative, which I believe to be horrible decision, would be more federal regulations which in my opinion would be ceding more powers to a central government ripe for additional corruption.

Rascal said:

---

This was in your initial post that I took to mean that you think information "is" something with constitutional ramifications.

---

You said that I said information is a constitutional right. I actually said that information has constitutional ramifications- ie, speech is the transmission of information, much assembly occurs online, and so forth. Especially true in the original context, which was contrasting information to crude oil. I'm choosing to believe that you're approaching this discussion honestly, but this wasn't a great start.

Quote:

---

why is the internet any different than "freedom of the press"? it's simply a technological improvement to the way information is voluntarily distributed and shared, assuming all done legally. investigate malfeasance all day long, but to broadly say that the Constitution is not keeping up with the times, seems awfully Progressive minded to me.

---

I think you're trying to read things into what I said because you've already decided what I think and now you need to cram me into that box. The internet issues are almost exactly freedom of speech. For better or worse, we use the internet rather than pieces of paper, town meetings, or a postman. A handful of powerful gatekeepers exercises massive influence on who gets to say what and to whom in the de facto public space. I think that needs to be examined to make sure that the structure of our democracy is not breaking down relative to the intent of the founders.

Quote:

---

Again, this tone sounds like something a Progressive would say, akin to "we have to act now...."

---

I reject this characterization a second time. Acting swiftly in response to a swiftly changing reality is not the exclusive domain of the progressive left.

Quote:

---

People are not cut off from information- they have a dozen other search engine or browsers they can use not named Google. In a free market, it is the duty of citizens to inform themselves and to socialize that information. a single entity like Google, that again, is one of many options, does not have that much practical power unless we give it to them by choice or via government fiat.

---

Your first sentence is a good point and certainly part of the debate that needs to be had. That said, I don't think I've advocated for breaking up Google. I thought I was pretty clear that where Google is taking an active hand in altering the relative accessibility of information without telling the consumer, they are doing something that is certainly distasteful and may be, or need to be, illegal.

I agree that it's the duty of the citizen to inform himself, but at the same time it's difficult to expect a normal person (ie, everyone eligible to vote) to be able to detect and evade intentional deception of this sophistication.

Google achieved (effective) monopoly status through being an honest broker of information. Now that there are no more worlds to conquer from a business standpoint, they are intentionally weaponizing their business to interfere in elections. I think we need to examine the weaponization, not the monopoly status.

Progressives don't hold a monopoly on wanting companies to refrain from deceiving their customers and stakeholders.


The conclusion might be that it's simply too hard to deal with and there's no good way address it without unintended consequences worse than the original problem, so we have to let Google (and several other companies) continue deceiving voters. There's no bright line between a "spin" and a lie, and direct regulation is likely to lead to an increasingly arcane arms race of rules and loopholes that become another barrier to entry. I still don't think it's asking too much to take a look and consider addressing the problem through better transparency or other methods.

In the meantime, as individuals we have a responsibility to be critical thinkers and request the same from others.

Law Hall 69-72 said:

---

If you tell me that DuckDuckGo is owned by Google, I'll be very sad.

---

No DuckDuckGo isn't owned by Google, at least I don't think so. But even using DuckDuckGo as a search engine, as soon as you search then click a link, you will be known by Google through the cookies generated. Then google's ad servers begin reporting activity generating ad revenue for Google. I almost never use Google for search but their imprint on cookies stored on my computer is everywhere.

One of the most egregious behaviors of google was their gmail. I never used gmail so never agreed to their tracking. But when I would email someone with gmail Google automatically scanned my email extracting information through keywords about me.

Google has been and still is evil in my opinion.

Quote:

---

I agree that it's the duty of the citizen to inform himself, but at the same time it's difficult to expect a normal person (ie, everyone eligible to vote) to be able to detect and evade intentional deception of this sophistication.

Google achieved (effective) monopoly status through being an honest broker of information. Now that there are no more worlds to conquer from a business standpoint, they are intentionally weaponizing their business to interfere in elections. I think we need to examine the weaponization, not the monopoly status.

---

Hence my earlier statement that there is no such thing as a benign monopoly, not for long anyway.

I suppose amending the 1996 Telecommunications Act to hold these platforms as publishers capable of being sued might be a start but I don't think that would go far enough to stop the weaponization at all.

My .02.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

As a percentage of market share, it in the same category as US Steel, Standard Oil, Ma Bell. Seeing as they control information aggregation and distribution and that gives vastly more political influence, I'd say Google is possibly the most powerful effective monopoly in several markets it operates in that has ever existed regarding the ability to manipulate favorable outcomes.

---

Obligatory video

Obligatory video 2

Why am I here? said:

---

Yes and no. You are making your argument too simple on its face.

Google has protections to be a neutral platform which it has CLEARLY now violated with the way it's algorithms provide pre-decided results and skews users to/from certain view points.

In time, another platform could compete with Google, but not until protections are stripped away (rightfully so) and time given to build up.

Capitalist forces should intervene at some point, but wouldn't it be hard to compete if the only real game in town kept users from seeing stories about the abuses of Google? I'm sure they don't allow those search results to come up at the top of the page!

Fair question, but a very complex answer for someone way more IT intellectually competent to answer than some old dude like me.

---

The ONLY protections Google has (under Section 230) is protection from unreasonable lawsuits. They don't get protection from competition; every company in Google's class has that same protection. That says nothing about the innovative capabilities of the marketplace to be able to unseat Google as #1.

TAMUallen said:

---

Rascal said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.

---

Not really. There are numerous, basically hundreds of ad server companies out there serving the digital advertising ecosystem.

---

This is foolish. They dominate the ad server realm by far

---

Because they offer a superior service that the marketplace has rewarded, no?

MaxPower said:

---

I don't know how you break up Google, specifically the browser. Do you force users to redirect to another browser when they type www.google.com?

Interesting, it seems there's bipartisan angst about big tech. Republicans are more concerned with censorship of the right while the left is concerned about the typical consumer costs and job impact. Can they actually agree to do something?

---

WHAT needs to be done?

Again, showing my ignorance of The Act, but what specific metrics (i.e. % of market share is too big) does the government used to apply The Act to bust up monopolies?

Does it vary by industry or is it simply something like "once you achieve 70% market share, that's it's, we're busting you up"?

Well that was my first question. My second observation was more political in that both parties seem to be going after them hard for being monopolies. I wasn't necessarily advocating something SHOULD be done (I already admitted I don't know what that something would even be) but rather that the political will to do so appears to exist.

Ulrich said:

---

Rascal said:

---

This was in your initial post that I took to mean that you think information "is" something with constitutional ramifications.

---

You said that I said information is a constitutional right. I actually said that information has constitutional ramifications- ie, speech is the transmission of information, much assembly occurs online, and so forth. Especially true in the original context, which was contrasting information to crude oil. I'm choosing to believe that you're approaching this discussion honestly, but this wasn't a great start.

Quote:

---

why is the internet any different than "freedom of the press"? it's simply a technological improvement to the way information is voluntarily distributed and shared, assuming all done legally. investigate malfeasance all day long, but to broadly say that the Constitution is not keeping up with the times, seems awfully Progressive minded to me.

---

I think you're trying to read things into what I said because you've already decided what I think and now you need to cram me into that box. The internet issues are almost exactly freedom of speech. For better or worse, we use the internet rather than pieces of paper, town meetings, or a postman. A handful of powerful gatekeepers exercises massive influence on who gets to say what and to whom in the de facto public space. I think that needs to be examined to make sure that the structure of our democracy is not breaking down relative to the intent of the founders.

Quote:

---

Again, this tone sounds like something a Progressive would say, akin to "we have to act now...."

---

I reject this characterization a second time. Acting swiftly in response to a swiftly changing reality is not the exclusive domain of the progressive left.

Quote:

---

People are not cut off from information- they have a dozen other search engine or browsers they can use not named Google. In a free market, it is the duty of citizens to inform themselves and to socialize that information. a single entity like Google, that again, is one of many options, does not have that much practical power unless we give it to them by choice or via government fiat.

---

Your first sentence is a good point and certainly part of the debate that needs to be had. That said, I don't think I've advocated for breaking up Google. I thought I was pretty clear that where Google is taking an active hand in altering the relative accessibility of information without telling the consumer, they are doing something that is certainly distasteful and may be, or need to be, illegal.

I agree that it's the duty of the citizen to inform himself, but at the same time it's difficult to expect a normal person (ie, everyone eligible to vote) to be able to detect and evade intentional deception of this sophistication.

Google achieved (effective) monopoly status through being an honest broker of information. Now that there are no more worlds to conquer from a business standpoint, they are intentionally weaponizing their business to interfere in elections. I think we need to examine the weaponization, not the monopoly status.

Progressives don't hold a monopoly on wanting companies to refrain from deceiving their customers and stakeholders.


The conclusion might be that it's simply too hard to deal with and there's no good way address it without unintended consequences worse than the original problem, so we have to let Google (and several other companies) continue deceiving voters. There's no bright line between a "spin" and a lie, and direct regulation is likely to lead to an increasingly arcane arms race of rules and loopholes that become another barrier to entry. I still don't think it's asking too much to take a look and consider addressing the problem through better transparency or other methods.

In the meantime, as individuals we have a responsibility to be critical thinkers and request the same from others.

---

I can respect that opinion even if I'm coming at it from the other side.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

MaxPower said:

---

I don't know how you break up Google, specifically the browser. Do you force users to redirect to another browser when they type www.google.com?

Interesting, it seems there's bipartisan angst about big tech. Republicans are more concerned with censorship of the right while the left is concerned about the typical consumer costs and job impact. Can they actually agree to do something?

---

With all due respect, you are missing the point of what Google can do and does...
A Browser does not do the "Searching"...a "Search Engine" does. And Google algorithms, which have been coded many years ago, have been refined, updated and honed to a sharp point that they can either gut a point of view, or make it the #1 search engine response.

They have Chrome...they have Android, they advertising services...etc., etc., etc.

Most importantly, Google has over time linked these services and platforms into a cohesive internet machine that has, by default, constructed impervious barriers to entry for competitors, or potential competitors, that are too tough to overcome -- thus who can challenge?

Break 'em up...break 'em to such a granular level, that Android is separate from hardware, separate from search engines, browsers and applications, etc., which cannot interact or collude to produce integrated anything. Period. They can only issue an API Standard, which other products can use to interact...but no secrets sharing.

Break up Facebook too...strip WhatsApp out...and any other application that helps construct barriers to entry.

Force Twitter to Open Source their Interface to an API, so that others can pick it up, build a competitor...

Do the same thing to them, only even MORE atomic, that David Boies tried to do to Microsoft in the late 90's...MS had cut to length, hammered to fit, caulked and painted to match the Virus Collection Software Application, commonly called "Internet Exploder", into their POS OS called "Windows", in order to prevent competitors in both OS AND Browsers...granted, the hot mess they created enabled a multi-Billion $$ industry called "anti-virus", but...

Odd, we are technologically about 25 years further along the technology timeline, but back in the same predicament...how quickly our leaders forget consequences when their pockets are filled with treats from Pelosi and Schumer's Chocolate Factory...

---

So, basically treat them like the TABC, but with the added equivalent effect of the TABC making Shiner Beer share all or portions of their recipe and logistical expertise with their competitors?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Possible solution: STOP USING GOOGLE?

---

No, that's not the solution.

Monopolists behave the way they do, even when it seems counter-intuitive to their financial interests, simply because they can.

You may not be old enough to remember Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company. If you wanted a phone line to your house or business, your only choice was Ma Bell. That ended when the ant-trust laws were used to bust up the giant company. Was Ma Bell really that pernicious? Not really but having the power is enough to trigger anti-trust concerns.

There is no such thing as a benign monopoly being sustained over time.

---

So, because we are preemptively and overly concerned, we justified busting up a phone company that hadn't demonstrated anything malicious? Is that a good precedent especially if authoritarians from the left side of the political spectrum come into power?

OK, apologize for the wall of words, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

Google/Twitter/Facebook market position is very similar to the market position of TV station's in the 60's. There was only so much radio bandwidth to go around, and so the siphon of information available to the public was through a very narrow straw.

The response to that was to get stations that licensed radio spectrum to agree to some amount of regulation on the content that they could carry, and take a neutral position on political issues.

Google, Twitter and Facebook are in a unique position in that they are powerhouses because they became giants at the dawn of the internet age, much like Standard Oil at the beginning of the age of the internal combustion engine. Standard Oil was not the first oil company, but they made smart market moves that put them in a place of extreme market power when they were at their peak.

Google, Twitter and Facebook are in the position that they are in due to network effects. They are successful because they are big. They got big because: 1) they were good (they still are); and 2) people trusted them to be fair and neutral (they are no where even in the same universe as fair anymore). Now that they are big, they don't even have to pretend to be fair anymore. They are big because they offer decent products, the internet is young, they have acquired all of their competitors, and fighting network effects is hard.

Together, acting as an oligopoly, these three hold a very dangerous position in our society as de facto stewards of the truth. This should never be. There really isn't even a question as to whether or not this concentration of information flow is unhealthy. It absolutely is.

The question is what to do about it. Possible answers:

1) Nothing. Let the free market do its thing. Everything absolutely will play out for the better in the end, I believe that, but that process might include a shooting war and real revolution, which won't be pretty.

2) Break up the monopolies. Here, you make Google divest of youtube. You might also make them break up units including Android, Gmail, Adwords, Maps, etc. This, I believe, would destroy significant value. Google's business strategy is to be as creepy as legally possible to figure out exactly who you are, and sell you as an ad to people who think you are likely to buy their product. Breaking up the pieces disrupts this business model. I think that would be bad.

3) Regulate them as monopolies. Here, you force transparency and disclosure, and put legal limits on levels of creepiness. Make Google tell them what you they are doing. Tell them they can't do certain things. The levels of creepiness that Google does or at least has done at one time includes:

• always recording everything you say within earshot of your phone,
• converting your cell phone calls into wi-fi calls while you are at home so they can record your conversations (making that upgrade mandatory to continue using your android phone whether you like it or not),
• scanning your email,
• scanning your web posts on google chrome,
• scanning your documents on that you host on the google cloud, etc, etc, etc.

They have gotten very good at predicting who you are by looking over your shoulders when you are in your PJs.

Furthermore, Google manipulates what you see. Not only do they direct you to places that make them more money, they direct you to places that they think will make you a better citizen, at least in Google's eyes. When they say "don't be evil" they aren't just talking about themselves, they are talking about you, and Google is the one that gets to define evil. Non-socialists beware. Regulation would require them to have an objective standard of who is getting censored, disclose when someone is getting censored and how, give people a way to protest getting censored, report to others who they censored and why, and generally provide transparency on their moderation decisions (hi mods ).

This reform is coming within the next decade or two, in one form or another. At some point, more of this stuff is going to leak out. If not through government regulation, then an Eric Snowden style truth bomb is going to come out, and people are going to be appalled.

Why can we not get strong privacy protections that would make all this data collection and warehousing illegal?

Either that or force companies like google to make ALL that data available to the public? That way everyone has access to it and it could create a more competitive environment for how that data gets used.

Monopoly or not. If it's true that google helped the Chinese military in making a touchscreen for their new fighter US intelligence needs to work behind the scenes and apply pressure to Google.

Lawsuits against Google could be crippling if they are linked in some way to directing a bad actor a certain way. Do not under-estimate the greed and determination of personal injury lawyers!!!

Assume a dude goes whacko and kills innocence and The family lawyer for the victims in discovery finds the guy was radicalized by having all of his search results send him only NEGATIVE info and it makes him crazy and inspired to act out!?

Lawyers are good in jury trials. Just sayin......

Why am I here? said:

---

What percent of searches occur on Google? And what laws is Google exempt from?

---

Checking Google now. Hold on just a second....

Of the three choices

Quote:

---

1) Nothing. Let the free market do its thing. Everything absolutely will play out for the better in the end, I believe that, but that process might include a shooting war and real revolution, which won't be pretty.

2) Break up the monopolies. Here, you make Google divest of youtube. You might also make them break up units including Android, Gmail, Adwords, Maps, etc. This, I believe, would destroy significant value. Google's business strategy is to be as creepy as legally possible to figure out exactly who you are, and sell you as an ad to people who think you are likely to buy their product. Breaking up the pieces disrupts this business model. I think that would be bad.

3) Regulate them as monopolies. Here, you force transparency and disclosure, and put legal limits on levels of creepiness. Make Google tell them what you they are doing. Tell them they can't do certain things. The levels of creepiness that Google does or at least has done at one time includes:

• always recording everything you say within earshot of your phone,
• converting your cell phone calls into wi-fi calls while you are at home so they can record your conversations (making that upgrade mandatory to continue using your android phone whether you like it or not),
• scanning your email,
• scanning your web posts on google chrome,
• scanning your documents on that you host on the google cloud, etc, etc, etc.

---

I choose 2), the nuclear option.

As you said, they all have grown so big and insidious, that they are an alien life form that is not compatible with the United States culture...or at least the one with which I am comfortable.

If you talk to those who are "in" to the technology, advising them caution gets reaction of stiffness and a verbal, "I'm not doing anything illegal". And trying to show them what a Google query on them can reveal is usually met with disbelief.

Those who are addicted to the crack, do not want to give it up.

Ulrich said:

---

Rascal said:

---

This was in your initial post that I took to mean that you think information "is" something with constitutional ramifications.

---

You said that I said information is a constitutional right. I actually said that information has constitutional ramifications- ie, speech is the transmission of information, much assembly occurs online, and so forth. Especially true in the original context, which was contrasting information to crude oil. I'm choosing to believe that you're approaching this discussion honestly, but this wasn't a great start.

Quote:

---

why is the internet any different than "freedom of the press"? it's simply a technological improvement to the way information is voluntarily distributed and shared, assuming all done legally. investigate malfeasance all day long, but to broadly say that the Constitution is not keeping up with the times, seems awfully Progressive minded to me.

---

I think you're trying to read things into what I said because you've already decided what I think and now you need to cram me into that box. The internet issues are almost exactly freedom of speech. For better or worse, we use the internet rather than pieces of paper, town meetings, or a postman. A handful of powerful gatekeepers exercises massive influence on who gets to say what and to whom in the de facto public space. I think that needs to be examined to make sure that the structure of our democracy is not breaking down relative to the intent of the founders.

Quote:

---

Again, this tone sounds like something a Progressive would say, akin to "we have to act now...."

---

I reject this characterization a second time. Acting swiftly in response to a swiftly changing reality is not the exclusive domain of the progressive left.

Quote:

---

People are not cut off from information- they have a dozen other search engine or browsers they can use not named Google. In a free market, it is the duty of citizens to inform themselves and to socialize that information. a single entity like Google, that again, is one of many options, does not have that much practical power unless we give it to them by choice or via government fiat.

---

Your first sentence is a good point and certainly part of the debate that needs to be had. That said, I don't think I've advocated for breaking up Google. I thought I was pretty clear that where Google is taking an active hand in altering the relative accessibility of information without telling the consumer, they are doing something that is certainly distasteful and may be, or need to be, illegal.

I agree that it's the duty of the citizen to inform himself, but at the same time it's difficult to expect a normal person (ie, everyone eligible to vote) to be able to detect and evade intentional deception of this sophistication.

Google achieved (effective) monopoly status through being an honest broker of information. Now that there are no more worlds to conquer from a business standpoint, they are intentionally weaponizing their business to interfere in elections. I think we need to examine the weaponization, not the monopoly status.

Progressives don't hold a monopoly on wanting companies to refrain from deceiving their customers and stakeholders.


The conclusion might be that it's simply too hard to deal with and there's no good way address it without unintended consequences worse than the original problem, so we have to let Google (and several other companies) continue deceiving voters. There's no bright line between a "spin" and a lie, and direct regulation is likely to lead to an increasingly arcane arms race of rules and loopholes that become another barrier to entry. I still don't think it's asking too much to take a look and consider addressing the problem through better transparency or other methods.

In the meantime, as individuals we have a responsibility to be critical thinkers and request the same from others.

---

Appreciate the thorough and thoughtful post.

I'll concede that I may have misinterpreted your constitutional ramifications statement and I see that you're not calling for the break up of this alleged monopoly, so I'll also concede that I'm sure I imprecisely blended you in with other posters' positions, so my apologies for that.

Still though, I guess I don't understand your point or comparison with crude oil. Speech is the transmission of information, but the information does not have to be valid for free speech to be valid. The Constitution guarantees us the physical ability to transmit information, good or bad, without coercion or penalty from the government.

And, I'm not trying to ascribe your motives nor cram you into a box. This isn't personal. I'm exploring and learning with everyone.

The internet is a tool, a piece of technology that is applied to universal concepts like free speech to make them more/less accessible; it is not 'almost exactly freedom of speech'. Powerful gatekeepers exhibiting large influence is a product of culture and is only solved via culture and the free marketplace therein. Government action cannot replace that.

Your last paragraph and last sentence especially are superb.

Let's just be real... the only reason trumpets want google and etc broken up is to make sure that the algorithms used direct people toward the news they want people to see and still seem to be objective. It is not about providing a better service to the market but a better service for a certain part of the market.

If google was 'right wing' people would be bouncing off the walls on this board about - "the market decided - google provides the best service - cry tears libs"

The one goal of communication from the right for the past 3 years has been to validate everything trump says - right or wrong... almost like a cult or something...

This is about forcing a certain view point down people's throats that has little to no basis in fact - but just to make people 'feel' good.

AggieYankee1 said:

---

Let's just be real... the only reason trumpets want google and etc broken up is to make sure that the algorithms used direct people toward the news they want people to see and still seem to be objective. It is not about providing a better service to the market but a better service for a certain part of the market.

If google was 'right wing' people would be bouncing off the walls on this board about - "the market decided - google provides the best service - cry tears libs"

The one goal of communication from the right for the past 3 years has been to validate everything trump says - right or wrong... almost like a cult or something...

---

I don't 100% agree with you, but this is what my concern stems from. I want conservatives to be consistent and principled.

I think there is plenty of thoughtful debate on this thread, and in general there is more of that on the right than on the left.

AggieYankee1 said:

---

Let's just be real... the only reason trumpets want google and etc broken up is to make sure that the algorithms used direct people toward the news they want people to see and still seem to be objective. It is not about providing a better service to the market but a better service for a certain part of the market.

If google was 'right wing' people would be bouncing off the walls on this board about - "the market decided - google provides the best service - cry tears libs"

The one goal of communication goal from the right for the past 3 years has been to validate everything trump says - right or wrong... almost like a cult or something...

---

You should have watched the hearing. The Dems were also going after them only for not censoring enough speech. There were damn few on the side of Big Tech in the hearing today.

aggiehawg said:

---

AggieYankee1 said:

---

Let's just be real... the only reason trumpets want google and etc broken up is to make sure that the algorithms used direct people toward the news they want people to see and still seem to be objective. It is not about providing a better service to the market but a better service for a certain part of the market.

If google was 'right wing' people would be bouncing off the walls on this board about - "the market decided - google provides the best service - cry tears libs"

The one goal of communication goal from the right for the past 3 years has been to validate everything trump says - right or wrong... almost like a cult or something...

---

You should have watched the hearing. The Dems were also going after them only for not censoring enough speech. There were damn few on the side of Big Tech in the hearing today.

---

I did but for much different reasons - dems have been because Facebook took money it knew to be foreign and allowed a foreign intelligence service to backpack onto their platform and influence and election.

Republicans - they want more people to be able to spread more information with no fact checking or limits.

It seems their only goal is to be able to spread as much information to people as possible to reach the outer limits of human society and convince them to vote for trump... hence
"Crazy doctor alien dna doctor lady"

SeMgCo87 said:

---

Of the three choices

Quote:

---

1) Nothing. Let the free market do its thing. Everything absolutely will play out for the better in the end, I believe that, but that process might include a shooting war and real revolution, which won't be pretty.

2) Break up the monopolies. Here, you make Google divest of youtube. You might also make them break up units including Android, Gmail, Adwords, Maps, etc. This, I believe, would destroy significant value. Google's business strategy is to be as creepy as legally possible to figure out exactly who you are, and sell you as an ad to people who think you are likely to buy their product. Breaking up the pieces disrupts this business model. I think that would be bad.

3) Regulate them as monopolies. Here, you force transparency and disclosure, and put legal limits on levels of creepiness. Make Google tell them what you they are doing. Tell them they can't do certain things. The levels of creepiness that Google does or at least has done at one time includes:

• always recording everything you say within earshot of your phone,
• converting your cell phone calls into wi-fi calls while you are at home so they can record your conversations (making that upgrade mandatory to continue using your android phone whether you like it or not),
• scanning your email,
• scanning your web posts on google chrome,
• scanning your documents on that you host on the google cloud, etc, etc, etc.

---

I choose 2), the nuclear option.

As you said, they all have grown so big and insidious, that they are an alien life form that is not compatible with the United States culture...or at least the one with which I am comfortable.

If you talk to those who are "in" to the technology, advising them caution gets reaction of stiffness and a verbal, "I'm not doing anything illegal". And trying to show them what a Google query on them can reveal is usually met with disbelief.

Those who are addicted to the crack, do not want to give it up.

---

Honestly, they are so big that just doing 2 would only result in having multiple smaller monopolies. You really have to do a combination of 2 and 3.

With just 2 - you still have google search being the center of the internet. And you really can't just fork that and have google1.com and google2.com and be an effective breakup - maybe you could if you forced both halves (or thirds or whatever) to not be able to use the google brand in any way/shape/form (including the URL). Splitting their datacenters by region would be disastrous for all unless you forced them to only serve certain regions of the world (which would be bad as well)....unless of course you split the datacenters out into their own company and forced the search companies to contract out the datacenters, etc, etc.

It would be a monumental mess and take years to do.

Quote:

---

It seems their only goal is to be able to spread as much information to people as possible to reach the outer limits of human society and convince them to vote for trump... hence

"Crazy doctor alien dna doctor lady"

---

And you think a single word that comes out of AOC's mouth is any better? I'll hand to Dems, they aren't shy about their mentally impaired, no sirree, put them right out there on the front porch.

Did you watch the hearing with Barr yesterday? You want to claim any of those Dems as shining examples of well...anything?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It seems their only goal is to be able to spread as much information to people as possible to reach the outer limits of human society and convince them to vote for trump... hence

"Crazy doctor alien dna doctor lady"

---

And you think a single word that comes out of AOC's mouth is any better? I'll hand to Dems, they aren't shy about their mentally impaired, no sirree, put them right out there on the front porch.

Did you watch the hearing with Barr yesterday? You want to claim any of those Dems as shining examples of well...anything?

---

I did not say one side was better than another just calling out the truth... If these rioters in Portland Were I dunno - republicans taking out a federal park land - they would have been shot by now.

Those people are as near Domestic terrorists as you can get - I support Barr 100% but that doesn't mean I'm gonna roll over - truth is truth buddy.... republicans want to cook the internet to work for them and are tired of being able to be fact checked every time trump opens his mouth. They want a a warm cozy place to go.

AggieYankee1 said:

---

This is about forcing a certain view point down people's throats that has little to no basis in fact - but just to make people 'feel' good.

---

You couldn't have said it better.

We are tired of Twitter, Google and Facebook doing that to us. We want them to stop.

Googles monopoly comes from being in synergistic arenas.

If you search for video on google, they can return their other company, youtube. If you use an ad provider on your website that isn't google, they can bury you in their algorithm and put sites that serve their ads to the top.

Basically they can just serve up their own products at every turn. And no one can compete effectively.

There is a case to be made for why monopolies can actually be good for consumers, and also some spaces, like social media, can be better with monopolies than without. That is if the monopoly holder behaves ethically. But now the tech monopolies are censoring users left and right and take sides in politics.

I don't think most of the population has any clue as to the full extent of influence exerted by Google, Facebook, etc., which are all bigger than you know.

Not too long ago I watched a pretty good documentary on Amazon Video called The Creepy Line.

The Creepy Line

Quote:

---

The Creepy Line reveals the stunning degree to which society is manipulated by Google and Facebook and how they do it.

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Rascal said:

---

SquirrellyDan said:

---

Googles ad servers can be considered a monopoly.

---

Not really. There are numerous, basically hundreds of ad server companies out there serving the digital advertising ecosystem.

---

This is foolish. They dominate the ad server realm by far

---

This. As someone who has gotten much more familiar with the Marketing world in the past year or two there is effectively no one else but Google. If you don't have Google AdWords on your resume and you work in this space you might as well change industries.

They have such critical mass here that it makes no sense to not focus on it if you work in Digital Marketing.