Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-find-you,-m'lud? dept.

The Case Against Google: Critics say the search giant is squelching competition before it begins. Should the government step in?

[...] might have been surprised when headlines began appearing last year suggesting that Google and its fellow tech giants were threatening everything from our economy to democracy itself. Lawmakers have accused Google of creating an automated advertising system so vast and subtle that hardly anyone noticed when Russian saboteurs co-opted it in the last election. Critics say Facebook exploits our addictive impulses and silos us in ideological echo chambers. Amazon's reach is blamed for spurring a retail meltdown; Apple's economic impact is so profound it can cause market-wide gyrations. These controversies point to the growing anxiety that a small number of technology companies are now such powerful entities that they can destroy entire industries or social norms with just a few lines of computer code. Those four companies, plus Microsoft, make up America's largest sources of aggregated news, advertising, online shopping, digital entertainment and the tools of business and communication. They're also among the world's most valuable firms, with combined annual revenues of more than half a trillion dollars.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, lawmakers from both political parties have started questioning how these tech giants grew so powerful so fast. Regulators in Missouri, Utah, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere have called for greater scrutiny of Google and others, citing antitrust concerns; some critics have suggested that our courts and legislatures need to go after tech firms in the same way the trustbusters broke up oil and railroad monopolies a century ago. But others say that Google and its cohort are guilty only of delighting customers. If these tech leviathans ever fail to satisfy us, their defenders argue, capitalism will punish them the same way it once brought down Yahoo, AOL and MySpace.

[...] There's a loose coalition of economists and legal theorists who call themselves the New Brandeis Movement (critics call them "antitrust hipsters"), who believe that today's tech giants pose threats as significant as Standard Oil a century ago. "All of the money spent online is going to just a few companies now," says [Gary Reback] (who disdains the New Brandeis label). "They don't need dynamite or Pinkertons to club their competitors anymore. They just need algorithms and data."

Related: Microsoft Relishes its Role as Accuser in Antitrust Suit Against Google
Google Faces Record 3 Billion Euro EU Antitrust Fine: Telegraph
Antitrust Suit Filed Against Google by Gab.Ai
India Fines Google $21.17 Million for Abusing Dominant Position
Google's Crackdown on "Annoying" and "Disruptive" Ads Begins


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 23 2018, @05:04AM (3 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday February 23 2018, @05:04AM (#642229) Homepage
    All lawys are violently enforced, perhaps. But that's different.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday February 23 2018, @12:26PM (2 children)

    by mhajicek (51) on Friday February 23 2018, @12:26PM (#642333)

    Laws are imposed by enforcement. If they were not enforced they would be suggestions rather than laws.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 23 2018, @03:10PM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday February 23 2018, @03:10PM (#642391) Homepage
      Absolute garbage. There are laws which are not enforced, but they have *im**posed* (been placed within) the legal system. Which makes them still laws. Consider all federal laws which states have said they will not enforce (drugs, sanctuary, equal rights, etc.)
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:23AM

        by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:23AM (#642829)

        "Impose" does not mean "put in". Note the word "force".

        im·pose
        imˈpōz/Submit
        verb
        past tense: imposed; past participle: imposed
        1.
        force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place.
        "the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them by others"
        synonyms: foist, force, inflict, press, urge; More
        2.
        take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment.
        "she realized that she had imposed on Miss Hatherby's kindness"
        synonyms: take advantage of, exploit, take liberties with, treat unfairly; bother, trouble, disturb, inconvenience, put out, put to trouble, be a burden on; informalwalk all over
        "it was never my intention to impose on you"

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek