11–20 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if such things are meant to be monopolistic, then the state should manage it.
You want the state in charge of managing communications between friends and family members?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if such things are meant to be monopolistic, then the state should manage it.
You want the state in charge of managing communications between friends and family members?
The state could abuse its power: companies do abuse their power, because to do otherwise would reduce shareholder profits.
Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.
The main reason for that is because they have been allowed to build a walled garden. Interoperable protocols would allow other companies to innovate on an equal playing field. Indeed if we follow the Bell example, the networked platform could be forced to be separate from those who profit off of it.
As talked about in this article, I think the main catalyst to increased anti-trust scrunity will be a mind shift away from the "consumer welfare" view of anti-trust. For the most part, big tech companies provide amazing service. I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have. Yes there may be some fakes on Amazon, and DDG in some use cases may be better than Google, b…
Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.
Would trust-busting do any good? The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations.
You could just split Google in half into Goo and Gle and force them to publish protocols their services use so they can share the network. This could also allow smaller players to join the network.
At the beginning you could bounce people going to google.com at random to goo.com or gle.com until they start prefering one or the other for whatever reason and go there directly.
And who knows ... maybe at some point Gle could attract more users by being more precise and less intrusive with their ads.
Until there is one Google, there is one strategy that can be tried at one time. This harms progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if such things are meant to be monopolistic, then the state should manage it.
You want the state in charge of managing communications between friends and family members?
As talked about in this article, I think the main catalyst to increased anti-trust scrunity will be a mind shift away from the "consumer welfare" view of anti-trust. For the most part, big tech companies provide amazing service. I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have. Yes there may be some fakes on Amazon, and DDG in some use cases may be better than Google, b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if such things are meant to be monopolistic, then the state should manage it.
You want the state in charge of managing communications between friends and family members?