News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. states lean toward breaking up Google's ad tech busi... by tw000001 on Friday June 05, 2020 @04:59PM (#23433881)
FAANG are different a kind of monopoly - an unprecedented one for which no legislation exists. They have a monopoly on data, as brokers they control not only what companies may purchase for commercial services, but through curation of search results and news/social media feeds they control what information reaches the eyes of millions of people.

This is an unprecedented amount of power over society wielded by corporations and, in effect, the handful of private citizens who own them.

I tend to lean libertarian but I've questioned for a while if it's appropriate and/or possible to limit this power in an equitable manner...but unchecked Google alone can probably sway elections with algorithmic manipulation of search results and even selective autocompletion.

That's probably the entire reason that the administration is targeting these orgs, and while I don't agree with the administration I believe this particular endeavor may be for the greater good. When Twitter can delete videos retweeted by the president, or add "fact check warnings" which effectively (though maybe not truthfully) discredit his statements, Jack Dorsey and his board are wielding a more direct, more immediate, and possibly more effective power than any of other branches of government.

Re:U.S. states lean toward breaking up Google's ad tech busi... by game_the0ry on Friday June 05, 2020 @08:10PM (#23435462)
They have a monopoly on data bc you gave it to them.

You can choose not to use FB and Google.

Re:U.S. states lean toward breaking up Google's ad tech busi... by tw000001 on Friday June 05, 2020 @09:04PM (#23435856)
I haven't had a FB account in about 10 years. I can't stop them from harvesting anyone else's data. Or controlling what they see.
Re:U.S. states lean toward breaking up Google's ad tech busi... by Avicebron on Friday June 05, 2020 @05:24PM (#23434154)
You're being hit hard wherever you go, but I think you've got a fair mindset. Small amounts of people have a disproportionate amount of final say in how millions of people get to group and share information. That has to have negative externalizations, it doesn't track that it would have absolutely no ill effects. If you have a legitimate argument that defends there will be no problems, please share, I'm open minded.

If Trump is attacking them cynically out of some tantrum relating to how they beat on him and his supporters. Then yeah, I disagree he's doing it for the right reasons. But I think he has the right directional thrust.