TikTok is now the most popular website

[ahalpert]

I think what he wants is honest living...honorable, but never happening, ever.

You can legislate such things. You can legislate against surveillance capitalism, you can legislate the right to repair, the right to be forgotten. Why not the right to take your digital **** from one service and decamp for another

 

[NorBro]

I don't know if you can legislate certain things. Some things seem too big and powerful and untouchable.

But seeing any major changes would open up my brain and provide me a new perspective on power and humanity.

Whatever happens tho...don't take down Yahoo's front page, which I've been reading every day for like 20 years. It's probably the most consistent thing that's ever existed in my life.

 

[ahalpert]

Well, the first 3 things I mentioned have actually been legislated in various places. And, as DLD points out, some of these companies may be in violation of existing antitrust law but have not been prosecuted.

Under a different system that would be more beneficial to users, these companies would still be immensely profitable.

 

[NorBro]

which 3 things?

 

[ahalpert]

. You can legislate against surveillance capitalism, you can legislate the right to repair, the right to be forgotten.

 

[NorBro]

Oh, yeah - those are fine, they are easy. [Not sure how surveillance on surveillance capitalism could ever be monitored though.]

LMK when they ban Twitter or TikTok, or force Amazon to drastically change, or YouTube, things like that.

P.S. That forgotten law is cool, but I guess not recognized in the USA, at least in certain contexts.

 

[ahalpert]

Oh, yeah - those are fine, they are easy. [Not sure how surveillance on surveillance capitalism could ever be monitored though.]

Facebook was fined $725M in December of last year for data privacy violations. That's not chump change. The lawsuit was brought in California

The European GDPR puts restrictions on how companies can handle your data, and the compliance of many of those rules can be monitored from outside the companies

I just read that Trump's AG (Barr) had an op-ed in the WSJ about regulating big tech. And apparently it has a very similar viewpoint to Biden's recent op-ed in the WSJ. There's a big bipartisan appetite for reining in big tech. Thus far, a small number of lawmakers who are basically bought and paid for by silicon Valley have obstructed such legislation, but the dam may break

 

[NorBro]

Facebook settled for $725M so it's a difference...get the headache over with.

But, IMO, that is chump change for that company and I think a point was being made, that's it.

Does anyone really lose sleep and care about protecting your data? ha

 

[ahalpert]

Facebook settled for $725M so it's a difference...get the headache over with.

But, IMO, that is chump change for that company and I think a point was being made, that's it.

Full-year 2022 report is not out yet for Meta. 3rd quarter their net income was $4.4B. At that rate, it would be $17.6B profit for the year, so the settlement would be a bit over 4% of their annual profit. That is enough to matter to a company and probably change the cost/benefit analysis of their infringements. How would you feel about losing 4% of your income?

At a bare minimum, data privacy is important to prevent fraud and identity theft. Or criminals, employers, etc knowing things about you that you don't want them to

 

[NorBro]

How would you feel about losing 4% of your income?

depends...do I still have the trillion dollars I made from the last 20 years?

At a bare minimum, data privacy is important to prevent fraud and identity theft. Or criminals, employers, etc knowing things about you that you don't want them to

agreed, but godspeed stopping that.

there will always be incredibly technically talented people who could be hired to do things. people that should be working for one side, but chose a different life. not terrible people, just highly skilled individuals interested in making money for their families.

 

[ahalpert]

depends...do I still have the trillion dollars I made from the last 20 years?

No, you've lost 75% of your net worth over the last 12 months. Or 60%. Zuckerberg has lost 75%. Meta has lost 60%. Your business is in decline. You can't afford to lose a billion here and a billion there.

agreed, but godspeed stopping that.

there will always be incredibly technically talented people who could be hired to do things. people that should be working for one side, but chose a different life. not terrible people, just highly skilled individuals interested in making money for their families.

In some cases, Facebook and their affiliates have stored financial data on unprotected servers, such that total n00b hackers could waltz in and take it

 

[NorBro]

No, you've lost 75% of your net worth over the last 12 months. Or 60%. Zuckerberg has lost 75%. Meta has lost 60%. Your business is in decline. You can't afford to lose a billion here and a billion there.

Facebook/Meta is an easy target right now. For any company, whether you're discussing numbers that were published for the public and/or including any hidden bank accounts in other countries, doesn't matter, no one likes to lose money; but, seriously, if this was 2010, 2012, it would be a mosquito bite when referencing it. Companies make it up. I'm sure you had a slow month, maybe a slow January, and made it up in other months or other ways. No one will publicly say $725M is chump change because you don't do that, but it's not the end of the world for a company like that.

In some cases, Facebook and their affiliates have stored financial data on unprotected servers, such that total n00b hackers could waltz in and take it

Ya, exactly with that too...and I have a feeling that the handling of people's data has been historically incompetent since the early birth of digital technology, more so than anyone really knows. It feels like only recently in the last 10 years that 'security' became a highlighted pain point.

I don't really trust anyone...if you've ever used a credit card, an email account, a browser, a phone call, you're compromised. Not that the data goes directly to every criminal organization on earth, but that it's there in a cloud for someone to see/take.

 

[ahalpert]

. I'm sure you had a slow month, maybe a slow January, and made it up in other months or other ways. No one will publicly say $725M is chump change because you don't do that, but it's not the end of the world for a company like that.

No, it's not like that because you can have a slow winter every year and that's already factored into your annual earnings.

This would be more like if i got an $8,000 parking ticket. I would be majorly pissed, i'd likely miss my retirement savings target for the year, and I'd make sure not to do it again.

That last part is crucial -- is it an effective deterrent? Ive seen stock prices take big swings on earnings misses of less than 4%. If this is a regular occurrence, it’s a big deal. If it's a one time thing, not so much. But they're probably forgoing some profit in order to comply.

I don't really trust anyone...if you've ever used a credit card, an email account, a browser, a phone call, you're compromised. Not that the data goes directly to every criminal organization on earth, but that it's there in a cloud for someone to see/take.

So, we should just not bother to try, then?

BTW here's an article on Tik Tok's "heating" button, which prompted the op-ed posted. Basically, they can make anyone go viral. And they can use that power to entice or trick creators to join their platform. But they're watering down the quality of your search results to do so.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/23564242/tiktok-heating-view-boosts-creators-businesses

Eventually, when all the creators are at tik tok, they can water down the results even more because you won't be logging in because the service is good. You'll be logging in because it's the only place to see your favorite creators. And they can gouge the creators even more because they have a lock on the audience.

Relatedly from today, "U.S. Accuses Google of Abusing Monopoly in Ad Technology" NYT- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/technology/google-ads-lawsuit.html

And The Hill - "Ticketmaster takes heat from senators, witnesses over its power" https://thehill.com/policy/technolo...-heat-from-senators-witnesses-over-its-power/

 

[DLD]

The DOJ doesn't even define what a monopoly is. Because, even though Google and its subsidiary YouTube may violate the terms of its content creators contracts, they ain't a monopoly.

 

[NorBro]

No, it's not like that because you can have a slow winter every year and that's already factored into your annual earnings.

This would be more like if i got an $8,000 parking ticket. I would be majorly pissed, i'd likely miss my retirement savings target for the year, and I'd make sure not to do it again.

That last part is crucial -- is it an effective deterrent? Ive seen stock prices take big swings on earnings misses of less than 4%. If this is a regular occurrence, it’s a big deal. If it's a one time thing, not so much. But they're probably forgoing some profit in order to comply.



So, we should just not bother to try, then?

BTW here's an article on Tik Tok's "heating" button, which prompted the op-ed posted. Basically, they can make anyone go viral. And they can use that power to entice or trick creators to join their platform. But they're watering down the quality of your search results to do so.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/20/2...ors-businesses

Eventually, when all the creators are at tik tok, they can water down the results even more because you won't be logging in because the service is good. You'll be logging in because it's the only place to see your favorite creators. And they can gouge the creators even more because they have a lock on the audience.

Relatedly from today, "U.S. Accuses Google of Abusing Monopoly in Ad Technology" NYT- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/t...s-lawsuit.html

And The Hill - "Ticketmaster takes heat from senators, witnesses over its power" https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ver-its-power/

I think you overthink stuff way too much. You read into everything very deeply and it seems like you develop opinions and emotions based on a lot of text and not a lot of life.

I don't know if it has anything to do with a certain up-bring, being sheltered - but I also don't know why anyone would be surprised at very powerful entities abusing power.

Personally, I'm also not a whiner and don't care what they do. Maybe that's a very flawed trait of mine, IDK.

Finally, you could create an article or headline like the above about someone in every year for the last 60 years.

 

[ahalpert]

The DOJ doesn't even define what a monopoly is. Because, even though Google and its subsidiary YouTube may violate the terms of its content creators contracts, they ain't a monopoly.

if you're interested in the specifics, here's a thread from an antitrust digital privacy guy I follow. (I don't know what his actual job is.)

https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1618029720599408643?s=20&t=eDwXSZsuT29CZed_VcFc0Q

"ok, let's do this. I've now read all 153 pages of United States vs Google filed earlier today. As I've said earlier, Google is royally screwed. The suit is super well-written building on prior work investigating Google’s market power abuse leveraging advertising technologies. /1"

I haven't read his thread. It's long and involved. Here's a graphic from the middle that is taken from the DOJ's filing:

 

[ahalpert]

I think you overthink stuff way too much. You read into everything very deeply and it seems like you develop opinions and emotions based on a lot of text and not a lot of life.

I don't know if it has anything to do with a certain up-bring, being sheltered - but I also don't know why anyone would be surprised at very powerful entities abusing power.

Personally, I'm also not a whiner and don't care what they do. Maybe that's a very flawed trait of mine, IDK.

Finally, you could create an article or headline like the above about someone in every year for the last 60 years.

you remind me of people in the 18th century who thought that slavery would endure forever

 

[NorBro]

you remind me of people in the 18th century who thought that slavery would endure forever

Who else reminds you of them? j/w

Seriously tho...you linked to the cat beds thing, I searched cat beds. I got a bunch of cat beds with thousands of reviews. I don't give a hoot who paid for the ads. I want a cat bed and there's a good chance one of these will work. Why can't Amazon decide who gets to be on their own page? What's the problem?

What's better? First come, first served? Or an ole short straw-long straw out of a hat to keep it mighty fair?

TikTok's conniving? I'm shocked and flabbergasted.

Um, HELLO??? Why wouldn't you? You control your system. You do what's best for business, not search results. You control the search results. You do business with elite, you control who's elite. You control.

I'm not trying to be mean (at least this time, lol), but you're just one of those people who doesn't get it.

 

[ahalpert]

Who else reminds you of them? j/w

Seriously tho...you linked to the cat beds thing, I searched cat beds. I got a bunch of cat beds with thousands of reviews. I don't give a hoot who paid for the ads. I want a cat bed and there's a good chance one of these will work. Why can't Amazon decide who gets to be on their own page? What's the problem?

What's better? First come, first served? Or an ole short straw-long straw out of a hat to keep it mighty fair?

TikTok's conniving? I'm shocked and flabbergasted.

Um, HELLO??? Why wouldn't you? You control your system. You do what's best for business, not search results. You control the search results. You do business with elite, you control who's elite. You control.

I'm not trying to be mean (at least this time, lol), but you're just one of those people who doesn't get it.

These sites rise to prominence by delivering a quality service. They operate essentially at a loss until they establish a monopoly-like grip on the market. Then they lower the quality of their service, which sucks for their customers and their partners. It's a big deal because by this point they are so large and entrenched that their behavior affects the entire marketplace. If they weren't so big, nobody would be writing about this.

So basically, the Tik Tok you have come to love will not exist in 4 years. It will be similar, but it won't make you as happy and it will cheat the people who make content for it. And it will be so big that it affects everyone.

The point about ads on amazon is that the products you find are ads themselves. And, of course, many of the reviews are fake. So basically, you could be spending the same or less money on a product that better suits your needs. But you're never going to find it. And it's next to impossible for that product's seller to successfully launch their product independent of amazon.

Your failure to grasp the significance of this and how the economy has changed with each new monopoly says more about you than it does about the economy.

Anybody who thinks that the way things are now is the way they'll always be reminds me of people who couldn't imagine an America without slavery.

 

[ahalpert]

The DOJ doesn't even define what a monopoly is. Because, even though Google and its subsidiary YouTube may violate the terms of its content creators contracts, they ain't a monopoly.

DLD, here's a thread that was pitched more at my comprehension level and desired reading time - https://twitter.com/DinaSrinivasan/status/1617976097882394624?s=20&t=eDwXSZsuT29CZed_VcFc0Q

whole thing pasted below

Many people don't realize that the largest electronically traded markets in the world are online ad markets. Today the DOJ filed suit against Google for illegally monopolizing them. This puts DOJ, half+ our States, and even Senators and Congressmen in alignment.

The reason this is such a big deal is because when the ads market is broken, it raises costs for consumers and citizens. Johnny spends $1000 buying ads on a website. When ad exchanges and brokers take $300-$500 on that deal, Johnny has to increase the price of his goods.

Compare this to how much stock exchanges and brokers take on electronic transactions: less than 0.001%. Now, a big reason markets are so inefficient is because one company in particular is messing with competition: Google.

You might have someone trying to sell ads and the person's broker (Google) might route the transaction in a bad way simply because it wants to force the deal to happen on its own exchange. This sort of behavior caused some publishers' ad revenues to suffer gobs.

To solve this, DOJ today filed suit against Google, and it's very excellent complaint is here: https://documentcloud.org/documents/23584911-usa-v-google…

State AG complaint here: https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/global/images/TAC%20-%20Redacted%20Version%20(public).pdf…

Bi-partisan bill from Senate on the same topic/industry/issues here: https://lee.senate.gov/services/files/7384B096-04C3-4A3A-9796-80D22483026F…

We saw a major meltdown in crypto due to conflicts of interest. We have similar problems and risk in ads. Crypto largely for fun and speculation. Ads directly affects costs of goods, the free internet, and the viability of a free and independent press in democracy.