261–270 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can use google all they want, the restriction would be on how much ad can be sold by Google.
So the remaining traffic would be all expenses, no profit? Doesn't sound like capitalism anymore then, more of a public service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine a government creating a search engine as a public service. ... Oh wait, that's actually a great idea and I want to see that happen.
I, personally, am very, _very_ glad my country doesn't oblige me to use a state-sponsored search engine. Baidu "六四事件"[0] to find out more! [0] "June Fourth incident", the Chinese name for the Tiananmen square massacre. Other banned search terms include "candle", "never forget", and the numbers 25 and 64.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a whole bunch of edge cases you aren’t thinking about. Markets can be highly local (hospital markets, eg.), firms go out of business, new products enter new markets (smart phones, tablets), even defining “the market” is hard (does Sirius XM have a meaningful “monopoly” on satellite radio?). So your “make 95% market share illegal” idea is quite challenging (actually impossible) to work out
Difficult but absolutely not impossible. There's whole domains of law dedicated to identifying and defining these kinds of fuzzy edge cases. Anyone that tells you it is impossible has malign motivations.
We aren’t failing to offer definitions here bc we’re in the tank for big tech. To immediately suggest we have malign motivations isn’t charitable. It’s genuinely a hard problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ask this every time it comes up, but what exactly does Apple have a monopoly in? They don’t control majority of anything in any category that they participate in. They are a major purchaser of high end fab processes, but that doesn’t allow them to control PC, phone, steaming, messaging, audio, home integration, or any other market. They are one of the most vertically integrated large companies, but they are allowed…
These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind o…
(I own zero Apple products, not really a fan of any mega corp)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, personally, am very, _very_ glad my country doesn't oblige me to use a state-sponsored search engine. Baidu "六四事件"[0] to find out more! [0] "June Fourth incident", the Chinese name for the Tiananmen square massacre. Other banned search terms include "candle", "never forget", and the numbers 25 and 64.
I wasn't imagining one would be obliged. Merely that as a demonstrated vital good in modern society, it's something a government could, perhaps, guarantee a minimum standard on. Ad-free tax-funded search would be kind of neat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, personally, am very, _very_ glad my country doesn't oblige me to use a state-sponsored search engine. Baidu "六四事件"[0] to find out more! [0] "June Fourth incident", the Chinese name for the Tiananmen square massacre. Other banned search terms include "candle", "never forget", and the numbers 25 and 64.
You know, even with Google amd Bing, search terms are extremely (even politically) censored depending on where you search from. It's not like Chinese users can search the same thing fine on Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a whole bunch of edge cases you aren’t thinking about. Markets can be highly local (hospital markets, eg.), firms go out of business, new products enter new markets (smart phones, tablets), even defining “the market” is hard (does Sirius XM have a meaningful “monopoly” on satellite radio?). So your “make 95% market share illegal” idea is quite challenging (actually impossible) to work out
Difficult but absolutely not impossible. There's whole domains of law dedicated to identifying and defining these kinds of fuzzy edge cases. Anyone that tells you it is impossible has malign motivations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not the law, so it’s irrelevant to the legal issues.
I don’t mean the law. I mean how the actual ad/search product actually works. As a Google customer I pay them to present my stuff the way I want it to my customers when they search for stuff about the things I sell. That’s the product, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words… it’s free. Google search is free. All of this “… then you are the product” stuff is totally meaningless legally and economically.
Wikipedia is free, Google search is not. You are paying for Google Search. People need to realize their privacy has value, a lot of value actually, otherwise Google Search and every other privacy invasive platform would cost money.
Antitrust laws are too reactive. We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Co…
Yeah and other countries won't follow suit. Congrats, you yield all the economics of scale to China. What now? "Export" the US's domestic laws to other countries like it always does?
That is the goal and why "Break up Google" is being aggressively pushed by pro-Chinese bots on reddit, twitter etc.
"Break up Google" should be translated to "Give all the data to China".
Before the rise of TikTok I would as a European have supported the US shooting itself in the foot by breaking up Google, Microsoft etc. I assumed those would be trivially replaced by European alternatives. However today, post-TikTok, I know the majority of people will just eagerly jump on the first Chinese spyware alternative that pops up.