- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
BREAK 'EM UP
Yeah, Google, Meta, Amazon, and probably others really need to get broken up and get proper antitrust treatment. I say this even as someone who holds stock (like a total of 5 shares, so not much) in a couple of those. I used to dream of working at Google as well, but that dream died quite some time ago based on their actions and culture.
I’ve recently got a description of their general climate from someone who apparently works in Google.
These companies should be broken into like 24 pieces each.
And their management of all time investigated thoroughly for anti-competitive activities.
There should a Nuremberg tribunal for corps. And open one.
Can I get six Baby Googs? And then we do Microsoft, apple, meta, and the rest?
ALL OF 'EM… let’s call the boys, let’s run a train
Need to do the telecom giants too
You mean the three last remaining pieces of Ma Bell after the children mostly combined back together?
Again
talk dirty to me
Employee unionization with benefits, and a retirement plan for ALL employees!
Universal basic income, return to FDR era tax rates but factoring in current inflation and closing the loopholes, strong antitrust laws with teeth, tying c suite pay structure to a percentage over the lowest paid worker, and any bonus to top levels based on profit must be equally shared with everyone in the company.
Let’s throw in any fines are calculated based on a person’s income for good measure
Would you like fries with that for only a dollar more?
Nah, I’m trying to watch my sodium.
That’s never going to happen. I’m not sure on what stipulates a monopoly in this scenario, but the fact that there’s bing, duck duck go, kagi, and a handful of others means it’s not really a monopoly which tells me there is some specific ruling here that they’ve determined is monopolistic behavior.
Edit: yeah after reading the article, wtf Google…
Because of network effects the understanding of a monopoly has to grow with changing technology.
The fundamental problem is that it wouldn’t even be desireable to split up many of the new social media and internet technologies because that would reduce the quality for everyone, increase costs to support as a business and increase environmental damage from duplicating server storage and power consumption.
What we need is to turn them into public utilities that have significant democratic input by their own workforce (the experts and enthusiasts) and the users (the billions of people who actually create the value for the thing).
This is a somewhat surprising position to see in the fediverse…
(I mean, I get what you’re saying, and I guess someone should bring that to the party, but there is s different way)
Hmm well arguably I ought to rethink my opinion now that lemmy is working well enough.
Look at how many niche communities tried to move from reddit to lemmy and failed. Basically all of them. Even just a little pushback of reddit did a lot (not letting communities be abandoned or closed). Then lemmy is becoming increasingly fragmented (e.g. US imperialists and socialist instances). Then you have people deleting years worth of contribution and valuable content on reddit, answers to questions etc. Or what happens when ~20% of the current lemmy instances fold because of server cost or lost interest? And ultimately how much of a dent on a civilization level is the fediverse going to make?
All that are example of how network effects create a “toll” if you try to leave them.
The EU recently mandated that messenger apps need to create a compatibility layer and afaik even that looks like it’s going to fail to work as thought.
Yesss… You’re not wrong, but I really do believe the solution we want is to be found somewhere in that direction. Considering the Google graveyard, the faang crowd isn’t all that reliable either.
I hope this doesn’t affect Mozilla’s funding
And Apple’s. Somebody should think about the shareholders.
I’m more concerned about Firefox dying because of a lack of funding and in turn giving Google even more of a monopoly over web standards
I’ve read that the main reason Google funds Mozilla is to prevent a monopoly situation. I bet they’ll stay committed.
Mozilla really does need to diversify their funding though.
I mean, it’s very convenient, when your only competition depends on your funding.
Say, if you cut a bit of that funding, it won’t immediately cease to exist. And you can double it in exchange for the right people taking the helm. There’ll be kickbacks almost impossible to prove.
This should be in the law. If your competition is funded by you, it’s not that.
To frame this question differently, why is Apple able to sell default access on their devices?
Quick math shows Apple makes ~100 Billion per year. The article states Google pays ~20 Billion to Apple per year. That’s a significant value to Apple.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the decision, but curious how Google paying Apple is a monopoly, but Apple offering search to the highest bidder isn’t also a problem (or maybe it is).
As another example, how well did the EU browser choice ruling have on consumers choosing a browser.
I wonder if Apple does a cost analysis on search every year and frequently go “NOPE” at the current state of search.
Apple Maps took years to shed it’s reputation. A Apple version of search would being a lot of negative press. And they can’t exactly handshake with Microsoft and Bing, as Bing has its own negative reputation.
All the smaller search engines, so they fit into the Apple mindset?
At the end of the day, they’ll take Google’s money. While finding a way to make their own.
Cool, now do Chrome!
Now do Chrome.
