Last time I checked, Google search had 98% market share in Germany, Android had 78% market share worldwide. I don't see how you can talk about decentralisation given dominance like that.
Whether or not a de-facto monopoly is a bad thing can be argued, I guess. (I personally think it is) But if one is present, I don't see why handing the power to a government that is (in theory) regularly elected and bound to basic rules of conduct and transparency is worse than handing the same power to a private entity which is bound to nothing except the expectation to grow and benefit their share holders.
You can. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference*
Until facebook decides to shut down this api - which is at their sole discretion.
They're not legislated as the Official Search Engine of the EU. Microsoft too once had 98% market share. As did IBM.
Also, think of China, where Google has no market share. Baidu will grow and bide its time.
"But if one is present, I don't see why handing the power to a government that is (in theory) regularly elected and bound to basic rules of conduct and transparency is worse than handing the same power to a private entity which is bound to nothing except the expectation to grow and benefit their share holders."
If you want to entrench the western world to assume Google is a permanent fixture, you write laws and regulations that make that assumption and turn it into a publicly transparent utility. This is how Theodore Vail turned AT&T into a monopoly for nearly 80 years in the USA. It wasn't necessarily "bad", at least for the first 50 years, it consolidated and standardized service, and provided transparency. But AT&T eventually turned against us by blocking future competition, and it took 15 years of fights to break it up. Plus its "transparency" also developed the presumption of letting the government have access to its data carte blanche to spy on its citizens. Personally, I'd rather not have an organization possibly run by Donald Trump know too much about me.
We could also break them up, or put anti-trust fetters on them, but that requires serious scrutiny before doing, as it might lead to massively unintended consequences.
"Until facebook decides to shut down this api - which is at their sole discretion."
Unlikely, given that API is the only reason anyone pays them money.
And then what exactly happened? Did competitors beat them on their own market because of superior performance or better regards for the interests of users? Nope. They discovered new markets and solved new problems which made the old markets less relevant. It's not clear to me that this is a process that you can trust will work in the future.
* Personally, I'd rather not have an organization possibly run by Donald Trump know too much about me.*
You mean like Trump Ventures which owns stock of Google, Apple, AT&T, and Tesla (among many others)?
"Until facebook decides to shut down this api - which is at their sole discretion."
Unlikely, given that API is the only reason anyone pays them money.
That argument makes no sense. I as a user don't benefit at all if some analytics company has a contract with Facebook that allows them to access my data. If users should realistically be able to migrate to another service, they need free and automatic access to their data - which Facebook is in no way forced to provide.
That's not how it works.
You have rights and easy access to your data - always have. 3rd parties don't get my PII unless I let them. Heck, I can download a ZIP file of everything I've ever uploaded with a single click! It makes zero sense they would prevent you from getting at it, if they did, they'd be breaking their own value prop of a place to share things, which by definition means people need to be able to get at it easily.
Again, this stinks of non-customers trying to interfere with Facebook customers for dubious reasons out of fear.
And who would enforce such a right if we have no governmental oversight?
If they did, they'd be breaking their own value prop of a place to share things, which by definition means people need to be able to get at it easily.
Facebook's value proposition is people sharing things within the platform. You can perfectly well provide that service and at the same time make it hard for users to migrate their data to a different platform. They already did it in the past. [1]
Again, this stinks of non-customers trying to interfere with Facebook customers for dubious reasons out of fear.
Indeed. In this case, the non-customers are Facebook's users and I believe the fear of entirely justified.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-blocks-contact-exporting-...
That Google has no marketshare in China is due to governmental regulation. It's success is hardly evidence that we don't need governmental regulation.
With Amazon, sure, there's a point, but that battle was lost 30 years ago with Wal-Mart when U.S. consumers decided they didn't give a shit about their local community, they wanted "low prices". Not everywhere, mind you.
"Very sad and dangerous for evolution a fully Googled or a fully Amazoned or a whatever monopolised world."
I'm not sure I agree. Where's the monopoly? High market share isn't the only criteria. It has to be a case where consumers have little to no choice, which is clearly not true today. Plenty of people avoid Google (I try as much as I can). Amazon also isn't the world's only retailer or cloud computing company by a long shot.
These things might be true tomorrow, but future crime ala Minority Report isn't actually a thing. I'm also not sure it makes sense to give corporate welfare to losers that will waste the capital, when these companies are actually giving customers good service (hence their high market share) and being great at technology (the barrier to entry is about knowledge).
Also, given the number of negative articles about Amazon by current and former employees lately, I wouldn't bet on their braintrust staying in one place.
"Also dangerous: fascism and communism are made of the same metal and come from monopoly of minds and costumes."
I think that equating global corporations with fascism and communism dilutes those terms too much. We are a global society of organizations, it is pluralistic, and it is relatively new. I'm not fond of unregulated global capitalism, but at the same time I think it's much riskier to be ham-handed with laws and regs because someone thinks they know better, unless there's a lot of peer-verified research on the issue.
I see very limited evidence of this.
"It is not good if they only act for their own shareholders or bureaucrats (who are they? what they want from us if not enslavement and control?)"
Most shareholders are you and your neighbours. I.e. mutual and pension funds. As an example, nearly all Canadians are all shareholders in various global companies via the CPP, one of the world's largest investors. My mother was an Ontario school teacher and is thus a shareholder in many companies, administered by one of the world's largest institutional investors (OTPP).
Most people who own equity don't want enslavement or control, they just want a return on the money they put in over their lives. Some senior management OTOH do want control/power, and enrich themselves in the process, and top management pay/power remains an open problem.
"You don't need fascism or communism in the given forms, it is the principle from which they arise that is emerging from these global consolidations again."
Again, I don't see this, sorry. The world is not consolidating, it is breaking apart, from my view. And Monopolies are always temporary at best (a few decades).
I feel that if we had broken up Microsoft in the 90's, we'd be in a much better place today. We're still churning out professionals by the millions who are fully dependent on proprietary software to make a living, when nearly equivalent free alternatives do exist for many of them (Office, CAD, Adobe are the biggest). It makes me sad, and Microsoft had a huge hand in that.
What a fallacious statement. How is government oversight of these companies going to prevent you from applying your own magical 'data privacy management' spells?
That depends on what is being overseen by the government.
I have no issue with EU-style or Canadian-style privacy regs for PII. I think that encourages local innovation by ensuring data can stay within a legal geographical territory.
Where I take issue is "AI is scary, please stop these companies from doing things" and by implication thinking that a government (a) is an organization I trust more than the company with what should be done with my data (a massive leap), or (b) provides value by preventing/limiting that organization from offering a services I want based on AI because non-customers somehow think it's scary or might lead to some nebulous monopoly power.
I'm not saying no government oversight is every warranted ever, I'm saying that there's a lot of fear-based desire in this thread for "government save us from Zuck!!" which isn't helpful when people don't even know what specific regulation they're looking for and what the systemic consequences of that would be.
That's my issue with people like Elon Musk & Sam Altman starting OpenAI, where "Many of the employees and board members are motivated by concerns about existential risk from artificial general intelligence."[1] and also people like Stephen Hawking raising concern about AI of the "Skynet is coming, panic!" style, (he also warned not to respond to aliens a few days ago), it just seems like a lot of the rhetoric is about a state of AI we're most likely 500+ years away from, while it may actually slow down useful research that will lead us there faster...
You must have had something in mind when you generated that bit of fallacious rhetoric.
Should there be? I'm not quite sure. I mean, personally I feel a lot safer managing my own data privacy with what I give these companies, rather than having a government do it for me. And I'm not exactly a libertarian, I just think it's rational that this should be decentralized, the risk of a company turning against "us" is a lot less than a government, given history.
"I've switched away from Facebook, and now I've lost touch with a lot of friends. They are my friends, why can't I export them? Why can't I export the data that belongs to me, and use it in some open-source format that allows me to reap the benefits of all the work that I spent tracking them down inside of Facebook's private garden?"
You can. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference
All those "What does your friend list say about your love life?" type surveys use it.
"As a society, we need to start addressing these things, or we are going to end up with Internet giants that we don't have the means to get rid of, and that aren't at risk of being out-competed."
We've heard this a lot over the years, but I've really never seen a case of a company that can't be out-competed. Who is it up to to "get rid" of an organization? On what basis? People stop using their services, and they stop making money is generally how it works. Otherwise, Antitrust law is the main mechanism today, isn't that sufficient?
People forget that Google didn't ask permission or get oversight or contact copyright holders when building a search engine. They hooked a couple servers on the web and started crawling it with their algorithm, and replaced other search engines pretty quickly because they had a better service. One could say that it's impossible to compete with Google, but I'm not so sure: Bing is doing fine (if small share), DuckDuckGo is growing, etc. Adding more oversight/regs to the Web just makes it harder to replace these companies.
I'm sure plenty wanted to "get rid" of Microsoft in the 90s because of their attitude and growing monopoly, and certainly they were fettered by the U.S DOJ., but looking back, the calls to break them up were a bit silly. No one would have predicted Apple was going to become much, much bigger (some still can't believe it).