so this may have been gone over but I can't remember
since the senate passed a bill restoring net neutrality, and presumably the house has or will support that, is net neutrality now law?
No, that was last Congress. New Congress hasn't taken anything up and all legislation ceases with the ending of a Congress.
aahh
but theoretically, the senate can (hopefully) pass the same legislation and then the house will pass it?
are they slated to do that do you know?
It depends on the extent to which the Senate Republicans were using the House as cover. Now that it's pretty much guaranteed to pass through the House, they might refuse to address it.
The lack of cover is the more relevant issue. It's the same reason neither side is really interested in getting rid of the filibuster too. The Senate especially loves it's ability to not have to commit to actually doing things while still making a show of doing them. But both parts of Congress love meaningless votes they know won't pass.
The long and short of all that being that just because they voted for it when it wouldn't pass doesn't mean they will when it can.
FACEBOOK’S MASSIVELY LUCRATIVE advertising model relies on tracking its one billion users—as well as the billions on WhatsApp and Instagram—across the web and smartphone apps, collecting data on which sites and apps they visit, where they shop, what they like, and combining all that information into comprehensive user profiles. Facebook has maintained that collecting all this data allows the company to serve ads that are more relevant to users’ interests. Privacy advocates have argued that the company isn’t transparent enough about what data it has and what it does with it. As a result, most people don’t understand the massive trade-off they are making with their information when they sign up for the “free” site.
On Thursday, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office, the country’s antitrust regulator, ruled that Facebook was exploiting consumers by requiring them to agree to this kind of data collection in order to have an account, and has prohibited the practice going forward.
“Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook user accounts,” FCO president Andreas Mundt said in a statement announcing the decision.
“We disagree with their conclusions and intend to appeal so that people in Germany continue to benefit fully from all our services,” Facebook wrote in a blog post responding to the ruling. The company has one month to appeal. If it fails, Facebook would have to change how it processes data internally for German users, and could only combine the data into a single profile for a Facebook account with that user's explicit consent.
One good point is that the Germans point out that because of how dominant Facebook is, actual consent is impossible to obtain.
Or, more accurately, try to get it to stick to either.
Because I'm pretty sure the actual result will not be either company changing a damn thing, but rather "okay, Germany / the EU can't use _______ anymore."
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they don't actually have that much power. But I doubt it.
Or, more accurately, try to get it to stick to either.
Because I'm pretty sure the actual result will not be either company changing a damn thing, but rather "okay, Germany / the EU can't use _______ anymore."
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they don't actually have that much power. But I doubt it.
They broke when China told them they still had to censor so I wouldn't expect otherwise here.
Or, more accurately, try to get it to stick to either.
Because I'm pretty sure the actual result will not be either company changing a damn thing, but rather "okay, Germany / the EU can't use _______ anymore."
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they don't actually have that much power. But I doubt it.
They broke when China told them they still had to censor so I wouldn't expect otherwise here.
Okay, China has more power than them. But does Germany / the EU? I think we may find out.
Or, more accurately, try to get it to stick to either.
Because I'm pretty sure the actual result will not be either company changing a damn thing, but rather "okay, Germany / the EU can't use _______ anymore."
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they don't actually have that much power. But I doubt it.
They broke when China told them they still had to censor so I wouldn't expect otherwise here.
Okay, China has more power than them. But does Germany / the EU? I think we may find out.
The EU is the second largest economy in the world. You won't find out if they have more power, you'll just find out they have enough.
The other way to look at this and the way you have to look at it. This isn't do the thing or don't. It's either comply with Germany/the EU and have access to that market or refuse to comply and have zero access to that market. Sure they could make more money if they could stay in the market and continue with their shitty business project; however, that's not an option. So they'll do this because staying in the market is much, much more money made than being forced out of said market. This is why google complied with China's demands because that ensured greater profits because it ensured they had access to the market.
The other way to look at this and the way you have to look at it. This isn't do the thing or don't. It's either comply with Germany/the EU and have access to that market or refuse to comply and have zero access to that market. Sure they could make more money if they could stay in the market and continue with their shitty business project; however, that's not an option. So they'll do this because staying in the market is much, much more money made than being forced out of said market. This is why google complied with China's demands because that ensured greater profits because it ensured they had access to the market.
This assumes they would actually make money without this. Unlike censorship this is actually an impact on their core business model.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Except, by not doing this, they are out of the EU/German market. I'd have to look at the specifics, but pretty sure they'll just handle thing there differently than elsewhere. Also not playing ball, gives an upstart a chances to building up an area of operations before striking out into the rest of the world. If they don't win this, they'll follow it because they really don't have a good alternative; especially, if it's the EU as a whole.
Though I'd be perfectly fine if FB had to pack up and fuck off in oblivion.
I know Twitter doesn't bother to geolocate IPs with regards to their anti-nazi laws. I know a few folks who "live" in Germany for twitter because of this.
That doesn't really directly cut into Twitter's revenue stream though.
It seems like the only restriction is that FB can't track non FB stuff, which should be the standard anyway. That means they still make money, just slightly fewer oodles of it.
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged on Friday to take aim at Amazon, Facebook and Google if she is elected president in 2020, breaking apart each of the big tech companies and introducing sweeping new regulation of Silicon Valley.
The proposal marks the most ambitious and aggressive effort targeting the tech industry offered by any Democratic contender for the White House, and it could put pressure on other presidential aspirants to offer similar plans for more aggressive tech oversight.
“To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it’s time to break up our biggest tech companies,” Warren said.
The proposal is twofold:
One, regulators would file anti-trust suits to unwind problematic mergers. Amazon would divest Whole Foods, Facebook would divest Instagram and Whatsapp, and Google would divest Nest, Waze, and DoubleClick.
Two, key services, like Google's search engine, would be marked as "platform utilities", and would require them to be separated from the rest of the business.
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
It... kinda does? Not in the sense that there aren't still dozens more places you can buy stuff online and groceries, but the fact that Amazon is trying to be the only place you buy stuff *period.*
And Instagram and Whatsapp are social media platforms. It might seem like they're different from Facebook, offering different things, but the whole point of competition is to offer a product that might appeal to a greater/unique set of customers than your competitors.
Dunno about Nest/Waze/Doubleclick though, but search engines being utilities sounds like a thing that should have happened yesterday.
Here's how it has worked with Wal-Mart, another company that would have been chopped up in another era. As Wal-Mart became more and more the sole retail outlet for much of America, companies had to do business with Wal-Mart to survive. Wal-Mart knows this and begins to demand lower and lower wholesale prices to get access to the store, to the point that companies are forced to cut costs and quality just to make a profit. Companies go bankrupt trying to meet Wal-Mart's demands or cut quality to the point they lose their reputation and die, and Wal-Mart just goes on to do it again to another supplier.
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged on Friday to take aim at Amazon, Facebook and Google if she is elected president in 2020, breaking apart each of the big tech companies and introducing sweeping new regulation of Silicon Valley.
The proposal marks the most ambitious and aggressive effort targeting the tech industry offered by any Democratic contender for the White House, and it could put pressure on other presidential aspirants to offer similar plans for more aggressive tech oversight.
“To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it’s time to break up our biggest tech companies,” Warren said.
The proposal is twofold:
One, regulators would file anti-trust suits to unwind problematic mergers. Amazon would divest Whole Foods, Facebook would divest Instagram and Whatsapp, and Google would divest Nest, Waze, and DoubleClick.
Two, key services, like Google's search engine, would be marked as "platform utilities", and would require them to be separated from the rest of the business.
Cool. Now let's break up ISPs and content creators like Comcast/NBC Universal and Verizon/Everything
Here's how it has worked with Wal-Mart, another company that would have been chopped up in another era. As Wal-Mart became more and more the sole retail outlet for much of America, companies had to do business with Wal-Mart to survive. Wal-Mart knows this and begins to demand lower and lower wholesale prices to get access to the store, to the point that companies are forced to cut costs and quality just to make a profit. Companies go bankrupt trying to meet Wal-Mart's demands or cut quality to the point they lose their reputation and die, and Wal-Mart just goes on to do it again to another supplier.
That's monopsony.
Monopsonies can also negatively affect wages, because if there is only one or two companies that have a demand for a certain skill, they can basically make new employees agree to whatever salary they want, because there isn't enough competition to offer their skills elsewhere. And what competition does exists doesn't have as much of an incentive to raise wages either, because the monosony sets the salary.
You know where you see that kind of Monospony all the time today? Silicon Valley.
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged on Friday to take aim at Amazon, Facebook and Google if she is elected president in 2020, breaking apart each of the big tech companies and introducing sweeping new regulation of Silicon Valley.
The proposal marks the most ambitious and aggressive effort targeting the tech industry offered by any Democratic contender for the White House, and it could put pressure on other presidential aspirants to offer similar plans for more aggressive tech oversight.
“To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it’s time to break up our biggest tech companies,” Warren said.
The proposal is twofold:
One, regulators would file anti-trust suits to unwind problematic mergers. Amazon would divest Whole Foods, Facebook would divest Instagram and Whatsapp, and Google would divest Nest, Waze, and DoubleClick.
Two, key services, like Google's search engine, would be marked as "platform utilities", and would require them to be separated from the rest of the business.
Cool. Now let's break up ISPs and content creators like Comcast/NBC Universal and Verizon/Everything
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
Amazon is an online retailer. I don't see how purchasing a physical retail chain for groceries (one area where online retail doesn't work as well yet) becomes problematic.
Here's how it has worked with Wal-Mart, another company that would have been chopped up in another era. As Wal-Mart became more and more the sole retail outlet for much of America, companies had to do business with Wal-Mart to survive. Wal-Mart knows this and begins to demand lower and lower wholesale prices to get access to the store, to the point that companies are forced to cut costs and quality just to make a profit. Companies go bankrupt trying to meet Wal-Mart's demands or cut quality to the point they lose their reputation and die, and Wal-Mart just goes on to do it again to another supplier.
That's monopsony.
Monopsonies can also negatively affect wages, because if there is only one or two companies that have a demand for a certain skill, they can basically make new employees agree to whatever salary they want, because there isn't enough competition to offer their skills elsewhere. And what competition does exists doesn't have as much of an incentive to raise wages either, because the monosony sets the salary.
You know where you see that kind of Monospony all the time today? Silicon Valley.
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
Amazon is an online retailer. I don't see how purchasing a physical retail chain for groceries (one area where online retail doesn't work as well yet) becomes problematic.
You don't see how it's a problem that one company is the biggest online retailer and also the biggest physical retailer (not yet, obviously)?
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
Amazon is an online retailer. I don't see how purchasing a physical retail chain for groceries (one area where online retail doesn't work as well yet) becomes problematic.
You don't see how it's a problem that one company is the biggest online retailer and also the biggest physical retailer (not yet, obviously)?
for groceries? Not really honestly. Is whole foods that big?
Now if amazon bought safeway, food lion, walmart, weis, kroger, harris teeter, trader joes, and maybe a dozen others, sure
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
Amazon is an online retailer. I don't see how purchasing a physical retail chain for groceries (one area where online retail doesn't work as well yet) becomes problematic.
You don't see how it's a problem that one company is the biggest online retailer and also the biggest physical retailer (not yet, obviously)?
for groceries? Not really honestly. Is whole foods that big?
Now if amazon bought safeway, food lion, walmart, weis, kroger, harris teeter, trader joes, and maybe a dozen others, sure
Whole Foods is huge, but also you gotta start somewhere
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
Amazon is an online retailer. I don't see how purchasing a physical retail chain for groceries (one area where online retail doesn't work as well yet) becomes problematic.
You don't see how it's a problem that one company is the biggest online retailer and also the biggest physical retailer (not yet, obviously)?
for groceries? Not really honestly. Is whole foods that big?
Now if amazon bought safeway, food lion, walmart, weis, kroger, harris teeter, trader joes, and maybe a dozen others, sure
Whole Foods is huge, but also you gotta start somewhere
Whole Foods is not just huge, but they are in a market that doesn't neatly overlap with just grocery stores. They are also a major supplier of gluten free (funny unless you have Celiac's), vegan, and other food substitutes that are needed by people with specific allergies and dietary conditions. Their major competition in that market are local co-ops, which Whole Foods has gutted.
So yes, Whole Foods being bought by Amazon does mean the domination of an entire market. The fact that it's a specialty corner of the market doesn't mean much, especially since Amazon is the other major outlet for companies that sell to that niche. So, it is 100 percent a monopsony if you are in the business of making, say, gluten-free flours.
And since Whole Foods are ubiquitous in urban areas, it is also a nice way to experiment and figure out the best routes into taking over one or more of those major chains next.
How are those problematic mergers? Amazon owning whole foods doesn't create any sort of monopoly?
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
Amazon is an online retailer. I don't see how purchasing a physical retail chain for groceries (one area where online retail doesn't work as well yet) becomes problematic.
You don't see how it's a problem that one company is the biggest online retailer and also the biggest physical retailer (not yet, obviously)?
for groceries? Not really honestly. Is whole foods that big?
Now if amazon bought safeway, food lion, walmart, weis, kroger, harris teeter, trader joes, and maybe a dozen others, sure
There is also the basic question of why Amazon, an internet retailer, needs to own a physical grocery store chain. What gain is there for consumers in that?
There is also the basic question of why Amazon, an internet retailer, needs to own a physical grocery store chain. What gain is there for consumers in that?
There is also the basic question of why Amazon, an internet retailer, needs to own a physical grocery store chain. What gain is there for consumers in that?
Consumers don't need to leave the house, or even open a new web browser, to get groceries and other basic essentials.
I work in residential package receiving, and a lot of typically younger people do not get groceries anymore. Everything is Amazon.
There is also the basic question of why Amazon, an internet retailer, needs to own a physical grocery store chain. What gain is there for consumers in that?
I was hoping it would lead to better home delivery of groceries. Hasn't really turned out yet, but until autonomous vehicle tech is satisfactory it might be a money losing venture.
Posts
since the senate passed a bill restoring net neutrality, and presumably the house has or will support that, is net neutrality now law?
No, that was last Congress. New Congress hasn't taken anything up and all legislation ceases with the ending of a Congress.
aahh
but theoretically, the senate can (hopefully) pass the same legislation and then the house will pass it?
are they slated to do that do you know?
It depends on the extent to which the Senate Republicans were using the House as cover. Now that it's pretty much guaranteed to pass through the House, they might refuse to address it.
The long and short of all that being that just because they voted for it when it wouldn't pass doesn't mean they will when it can.
One good point is that the Germans point out that because of how dominant Facebook is, actual consent is impossible to obtain.
Or, more accurately, try to get it to stick to either.
Because I'm pretty sure the actual result will not be either company changing a damn thing, but rather "okay, Germany / the EU can't use _______ anymore."
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they don't actually have that much power. But I doubt it.
They broke when China told them they still had to censor so I wouldn't expect otherwise here.
Okay, China has more power than them. But does Germany / the EU? I think we may find out.
The EU is the second largest economy in the world. You won't find out if they have more power, you'll just find out they have enough.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
This assumes they would actually make money without this. Unlike censorship this is actually an impact on their core business model.
Though I'd be perfectly fine if FB had to pack up and fuck off in oblivion.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's like when the EU went ahead with GPDR. It's easier to just treat everyone the same rather than try to track where people are.
Otherwise look to see a rise in German VPNs?
That doesn't really directly cut into Twitter's revenue stream though.
The proposal is twofold:
One, regulators would file anti-trust suits to unwind problematic mergers. Amazon would divest Whole Foods, Facebook would divest Instagram and Whatsapp, and Google would divest Nest, Waze, and DoubleClick.
Two, key services, like Google's search engine, would be marked as "platform utilities", and would require them to be separated from the rest of the business.
Companies owning both the distribution and retail arms of a company are classic antitrust targets. It's why the Hollywood studios lost control of their distributors and movie theaters.
The problem with Amazon is that it's trending towards monopsony, which is just as problematic.
I don't know what a monopsony is
has amazon owning whole foods caused anything terribad? Honest question, I don't have a whole foods anywhere near me.
It... kinda does? Not in the sense that there aren't still dozens more places you can buy stuff online and groceries, but the fact that Amazon is trying to be the only place you buy stuff *period.*
And Instagram and Whatsapp are social media platforms. It might seem like they're different from Facebook, offering different things, but the whole point of competition is to offer a product that might appeal to a greater/unique set of customers than your competitors.
Dunno about Nest/Waze/Doubleclick though, but search engines being utilities sounds like a thing that should have happened yesterday.
Vertical integration is a kind of monopoly that's distinct from horizontal, but still very much anticompetitive.
That's monopsony.
Cool. Now let's break up ISPs and content creators like Comcast/NBC Universal and Verizon/Everything
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Monopsonies can also negatively affect wages, because if there is only one or two companies that have a demand for a certain skill, they can basically make new employees agree to whatever salary they want, because there isn't enough competition to offer their skills elsewhere. And what competition does exists doesn't have as much of an incentive to raise wages either, because the monosony sets the salary.
You know where you see that kind of Monospony all the time today? Silicon Valley.
Warren would do that in a second.
Amazon is an online retailer. I don't see how purchasing a physical retail chain for groceries (one area where online retail doesn't work as well yet) becomes problematic.
There actually was a wage cartel.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/apple-google-other-tech-firms-to-pay-415m-in-wage-case/
Probably still is, but with less evidence.
You don't see how it's a problem that one company is the biggest online retailer and also the biggest physical retailer (not yet, obviously)?
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
for groceries? Not really honestly. Is whole foods that big?
Now if amazon bought safeway, food lion, walmart, weis, kroger, harris teeter, trader joes, and maybe a dozen others, sure
Whole Foods is huge, but also you gotta start somewhere
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Whole Foods is not just huge, but they are in a market that doesn't neatly overlap with just grocery stores. They are also a major supplier of gluten free (funny unless you have Celiac's), vegan, and other food substitutes that are needed by people with specific allergies and dietary conditions. Their major competition in that market are local co-ops, which Whole Foods has gutted.
So yes, Whole Foods being bought by Amazon does mean the domination of an entire market. The fact that it's a specialty corner of the market doesn't mean much, especially since Amazon is the other major outlet for companies that sell to that niche. So, it is 100 percent a monopsony if you are in the business of making, say, gluten-free flours.
And since Whole Foods are ubiquitous in urban areas, it is also a nice way to experiment and figure out the best routes into taking over one or more of those major chains next.
Again, you are thinking horizontal not vertical.
I honestly don't know? Has whole foods changed?
Consumers don't need to leave the house, or even open a new web browser, to get groceries and other basic essentials.
I work in residential package receiving, and a lot of typically younger people do not get groceries anymore. Everything is Amazon.
I was hoping it would lead to better home delivery of groceries. Hasn't really turned out yet, but until autonomous vehicle tech is satisfactory it might be a money losing venture.