The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

Post by badRNG » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

theplague42 wrote: post #277

badRNG wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolization of any industry isn't high up there on the priority list of issues we should address by far . Climate change, election interference, and COVID-19 are far more pressing issues than monopolization. However the fact that these other bigger issues exist doesn't mean we shouldn't care about or take action on the lesser. If one brings up how we should address issue 'x' and are met with "but what about issue…

So when Facebook has a monopoly on social media and allows misinformation to spread about _those exact three topics_, what would you suggest we do about it?

Post by 12xo » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #157

12xo wrote: post #50

On top of search, one of the real issues is that they set their ad prices with no market forces at play. $50 per click? Why yes, but only because they say so... Fake click? We say its real, pay us...

I thought the prices of clicks are determined by auction? So if it's $50 a click it's because your competitors find they can still make money paying that much. Most categories have PPCs in the sub $1.00 range last I checked.

Post by beambot » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

satyrnein wrote: post #55

tempsy wrote: post #18

I would argue Visa and Mastercard and payment processing at large as the top priority by far. It's crazy that we've given up control as a society of the only mechanisms for electronic payments in an increasingly cashless world to unregulated private entities who continue to jack up fees as often as they can get away with. Makes everything 3-5% more expensive. Ridiculous.

I definitely have concerns about the stranglehold the payment processors have, but does it really make everything 3-5% more expensive? My understanding was that a good chunk of the 3% fee is given back to consumers as cash back or rewards, and that dealing with cash also had costs for businesses.

Post by treis » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

_skel wrote: post #267

CPLX wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inquiry was opened in the early 90's and Microsoft's first consent decree to stop them from tying was in 1994. They later argued that IE shouldn't count and continued to bundle Explorer with Windows, and the US DOJ plus twenty states sued over it in 1998. So, no. The threats of antitrust enforcement against MS were a key part of the timeline for the first dot-com explosion, as they made MS curtail their behavior…

Microsoft didn't compete in e-commerce. They competed on desktop operating systems. Name an e-commerce company Microsoft tried to compete with.

Post by martin_drapeau » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

cmehdy wrote: post #262

martin_drapeau wrote: post #258

When a country regulates Google, they raise borders. Google, like any other global internet compnay, is across borders. I would hate to be blocked form accessing US Google when I live in Canada. Putting up barriers on the Internet is contrary to an open Web. It does exist for content. For example Netflix content in Canada is different than in the US. You just can't do that for web pages. In addition, nothing prevents…

I must be misunderstanding your example, because as a francophone living in Canada, google still shoves English-Canadian and French-Quebecois results + articles + maps my way when I search for information on Google.FR.. so I fail to see how Google isn't already doing exactly what you would hate to see them do.