Tech Giants Like Amazon and Facebook Should Be Regulated, Disrupted, or Broken Up: Mozilla Foundation (venturebeat.com) 187
The Mozilla Foundation has called for the regulation of tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook. From a report: Though tech giants in the U.S. and companies like Alibaba and Tencent in China have "helped billions realize the benefits of the internet," the report calls for regulation of these players to mitagate monopolistic business practices that undermine "privacy, openness, and competition on the web." They box out competitors, restricting innovation in the process, Mozilla wrote today in its inaugural Internet Health Report, "As their capacity to make sense of massive amounts of data grows through advances in artificial intelligence and quantum computing, their powers are likely to advance into adjacent businesses through vertical integrations into hardware, software, infrastructure, automobiles, media, insurance, and more -- unless we find a way to disrupt them or break them up." Governments should enforce anti-competitive behavior laws and rethink outdated antitrust models when implementing regulation of tech giants, the report states.
I'm calling for regulation... (Score:4, Insightful)
... of the Mozilla Foundation. Sit down and shut up. Stop ruining firefox.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop ruining firefox.
Stop ruining, as in you already successfully ruined it, any further efforts to foul it up are redundant.
Treacherous Road Ahead (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it is mere perception or not, companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are seen to be anti-competitive and a net detriment to the overall market. But perception is usually the basis for laws and regulations despite the best intentions.
These guys need to get out in front of the perception and "do something" (I have no idea what that would be), or when the Democrats eventually do regain the majority (and they will...it's all a cycle), we will end up with an incomprehensible mess of regulations and restrictions that nobody wants to deal with.
It is highly likely that your little website selling wooden birdhouses would end up having to file/certify/abide by some stupid regulation that in reality has nothing to do with wooden bird houses. That is just how Washington works.
So take heed, Facebook, Amazon, and Google. What befall you will befall us all.
They are already doing something! (Score:5, Informative)
Whether it is mere perception or not, companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc are seen to be anti-competitive and a net detriment to the overall market. But perception is usually the basis for laws and regulations despite the best intentions.
These guys need to get out in front of the perception and "do something" (I have no idea what that would be), or when the Democrats eventually do regain the majority (and they will...it's all a cycle), we will end up with an incomprehensible mess of regulations and restrictions that nobody wants to deal with.
04/8/18 – Facebook censors Diamond and Silk’s page, labeling them “unsafe to the community.” The outspoken sisters were were provided with no reason why their videos were labeled as unsafe.
11/2/17 – The president’s Twitter handle, @RealDonaldTrump, is deactivated for 11 minutes.
10/9/17 – Twitter shuts down Congressman Marsha Blackburn’s campaign’s ability to promote her announcement video because of pro-life statements.
09/9/17 – A pro-Trump YouTube star has her song “Make America Great Again” taken down from YouTube. The company refuses to comment on this specific case.
10/12/16 – Google’s YouTube censors conservative video channel by labeling it “restricted adult content.”
06/22/16 – Anti-Hillary Clinton game removed from Google Play Store, but “Punch the Trump” game remains.
06/10/16 – Investigative video released showing how Google manipulates search results to favor Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
06/26/06 – Google begins to prioritize its own services over those of start-up competitor Foundem.com in search results.
They are already doing something!
Re: (Score:2)
Ha!
Seems like that's just making it worse for themselves in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Google begins to prioritize its own services over those of start-up competitor Foundem.com in search results.
No shit? In 2006 Google didn't actively prop up its competitors? Gee thanks that's some shocking info. In other news, Target doesn't provide free Ubers taking people over to Walmart.
As for the rest, provide links to reputable sources for those things or it's all disregarded. Not saying it didn't happen, but I need to verify that this isn't "fake news". You understand, right?
Re: (Score:2)
if you missed them that's your problem
If you actually want to influence the thinking of others, it's definitely your problem. By the way, I hear Trump eats babies. It's true. If you didn't bother to read about it, that's your problem. See how that works?
As for the rest of your post, I don't know who you are talking to. I never argued for (or against) regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, he found 10 videos that got kicked off of a service that happened to be pro Trump. We just don't have enough "Kick Hillary" games for our self expression!
There's what, 2 million new videos a day on Youtube. You don't think a lot of stuff gets a hit?
The problem with Google and Facebook is not what they censor, but the amazing detail they get to profile you. They might discover that you are 20% more likely to buy a car after seeing a picture of a steak. So companies that buy their services to socially en
Re:Treacherous Road Ahead (Score:4, Insightful)
These guys need to get out in front of the perception and "do something" (I have no idea what that would be), or...
They are. It is called "campaign contributions."
Re: (Score:2)
How is Amazon anti-competitive? I, and I imagine most people, order from Amazon because it's a much better experience that shopping at a bricks and mortar retailer. Lots of things on Amazon are sold by third-parties as well.
Instead of driving 10 minutes to the local Target and taking a cart down the aisles and hoping what I need is in-stock, checking out and driving home I can shop from almost anywhere via my phone and my goods will be waiting for me when I get home.
Re:I'm calling for regulation... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, FireFox has become quite good. After the major code refactor, it took a leap above Chrome in performance. I switched back to Firefox after not having used it since the early 2000s.
I'm still on version 56.0.2 because I don't want to give up my plugins, like Session Manager which still has no true equivalent among the nu-plugins.
Re: (Score:2)
I upgraded and gave up Session Manager. "Tab Session Manager" is ok, but screws up more often than Session Manager did.
It has always astounded me that FF never bothered to have a session manager built-in, nor how FF has delegated everything dealing with Tab management to an extension. Opera had those basics up thru version 12 for as long as I can remember - a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
The first signs of a failing organization are all the same.
"If you can't compete, litigate."
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to be part of the computer age (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Teat. Or "tit" if you want to be rude about it....
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the marriage is over (Score:2, Informative)
Without Google's $330M/yr (!), Mozilla is really reminding me of a jilted first wife. ("If I can't have my old lifestyle, NO ONE will ever be happy again!")
https://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-maker-mozilla-we-dont-need-googles-money-anymore/
In other hallucinations (Score:4, Interesting)
The Mozilla Foundation has called for the regulation of tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
If they want to have this happen they have to show how CONSUMERS are being harmed in some tangible (mostly financial) way. The mere fact that those companies have simply out competed their rivals is not sufficient and it's clear those companies have provided a lot of value whatever their flaws might be. None of those companies are monopolies or if they are they are extremely narrow ones. Amazon may be the big gorilla in ecommerce but they aren't a monopoly. Facebook may dominate social media but proving that harms consumers is going to be a tough argument.
Plus is it really realistic to call for regulation when the party that breaks out in hives whenever they hear the word controls both congress and the presidency? Never going to happen. This is the same party that seems to think net neutrality is some communist plot to reduce profits of big business. This is the same party that hasn't issued a single enforcement action out of the CFPB [consumerfinance.gov] in over a year. Regulate? Not bloody likely.
Re:In other hallucinations (Score:5, Informative)
Your definition of a monopoly is poor. Also monopolistic behavior is what is regulated (in theory) in the US. Standard Oil engaged in monopolistic practices when it conspired with railroads to have the railroad levy charges on other oil producers and transfer the money from those charges to Standard Oil. You would say Standard was not a monopoly because there were other producers. It is the monopolistic behavior that is onerous and stifles competition. Standard Oil was a monopoly because it was big enough to engage in that behavior.
Amazon is definitely big enough to do things as Standard Oil did. Google is big enough to do such things and HAS with the help of government institutions. Under the guise of a great central library, Google basically obtained complete immunity from copyright laws in order for them to copy anything ever published. There is no great all inclusive library available to the public as a result. But the vast library peeking from behind the Google paywall is evident. Meanwhile we go the archive.org for historical reference materials.
So we do need enforcement of anti-trust but the corruption in government is so bad that the government actually facilitates trust and monopoly creation when they give indulgences to obvious monopoly power.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is definitely big enough to do things as Standard Oil did. Google is big enough to do such things and HAS with the help of government institutions.
And yet, most stuff sold on amazon.com is not sold by Amazon. Personally, I hate that, since I hate the flea market feel and risk of fraud from random sellers, but they certainly aren't acting like a monopoly.
Google OTOH would hassle me to switch to Chrome every time I checked gmail, has started Chrome firmly down the path to being the next IE6, and is abusing the Android platform with their all-or-nothing demands for Google apps / app store.
Hardly seems fair to group them together. And Facebook, much as
Re: (Score:2)
and is abusing the Android platform
The same Android platform that is 95% developed by Google?
their all-or-nothing demands for Google apps / app store
What does that mean. Anyone can take AOSP and build a commercial product on it. There's no obligation to run Google apps or their app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the app store, you'll be as successful as the Fire phone or Windows phone. But you can't just take the app store, you have to take the whole bundle. Bundling a web browser with the dominant OS - where have we seen that sort of thing before?
Monoplies (Score:2)
Your definition of a monopoly is poor.
Not my definition. It's the definition used by the US government. If you think it is a poor definition your argument is with them, not me.
Also monopolistic behavior is what is regulated (in theory) in the US.
For it to be monopolistic behavior by definition the company has to be a monopoly first.
You would say Standard was not a monopoly because there were other producers.
Strawman. Stop your pathetic attempt to put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort nor did I even imply it.
Amazon is definitely big enough to do things as Standard Oil did.
That is irrelevant. They would have to DO the sorts of things that Standard Oil did. Merely being large does not equal being a monopoly. And whether a company is a m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, no. It's a fascist plot to regulate up some free upstream bandwidth for content providers. Take note of who is in favor of "net neutrality".... big companies with big internet bills. Remember how all this shit started? Netflix vs Comcast and "peering"...?
Clueless assholes are the ones keeping this "net neutrality" issue alive. Let it die, asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
Take note of who is in favor of "net neutrality".... big companies with big internet bills.
The only people who are not in favor of net neutrality are large ISPs who have the ability to effectively tax all internet traffic. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc stand to make a huge amount of money at the expense of almost everyone else.
I am strongly in favor of net neutrality and I'm certainly not a big company with a big internet bill.
Clueless assholes are the ones keeping this "net neutrality" issue alive. Let it die, asshole.
Fuck off troll.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess in your magical world, internets are free, and those horrible profit-seeking entities are putting price tags on the freedom. Grow the fuck up. Every packet is paid for.... Either the Netfix's of the world charge you more for their service, or they get idiots like you to lobby the government to make the internets free, and then the ISPs have to pay (which means you pay).
Re: (Score:2)
I pay for connectivity. It's not free. Some sites charge for access. I'll either pay or not use them, no biggie. I have no problems with paying for access and possibly paying content providers for content. I don't want my ISP tacking on additional fees arbitrarily.
Re: (Score:2)
You, for the sake of argument, have a netflix account. so, they need to send you a lot of data when you stream movies (some say netflix composes 50% of all internet traffic in the US).
Netflix has multiple ISP s(called a content distribution network, or CDN). Netflix pays metric shit tons of money for their internet. Their ISP bills are so high because they need rediculous bandwidth to handle all the concu
Re: (Score:2)
Here's how it works. I don't use Comcast or Netflix, but let's use your examples.
Netflix pays a lot of money for connectivity. This is presumably factored into what they would charge me. It's actually not really my business. Netflix makes a profit on me or they don't, and that's their problem. If they screw it up, then either they go bankrupt or I get crap service and go somewhere else. Your free market in action. I pay money for connectivity. Nobody's asking anything for free. What I want is to
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that you, and most consumers, don't understand what it is they are buying.
Lets go over yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer financial harm is not the only bad result that can come from monopolization of markets. The view that monopolies should only be restrained if it could be proven that they harm consumers financially was put in place by the Reagan administration in order to be more friendly to the big corporations. Before that, monopolies were considered harmful to the principles of freedom, an
I'm pretty sure the headline is backwards (Score:4, Informative)
A colon *PRECEDES* a list or a more detailed explanation of whatever was immediately before it. It can be used to indicate that someone said something, but then whoever said it should come before the colon, not after.
I'm pretty sure, thus, that the headline should actually read "Mozilla Foundation: Tech Giants Like Amazon and Facebook Should Be Regulated, Disrupted, or Broken Up".
While one could argue that this form of headline might be acceptable because one can still figure out what was probably meant, I am not convinced that is an acceptable reason to discard notions of proper grammar and punctuation usage.
Re: (Score:2)
The reversed order in this type of scenario is used to redirect the emphasis of the headline to the latter subject. That is to say, the structure of the title herein is directing the readers attention to the fact that the Mozilla Foundation is specifically the party which holds these views... rather than attempting to focus the readers attention on the views themselves. This type of literary tool can be useful when the author does not necessarily hold with the views and opinions expressed by the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% agree.
I also agree, Mozilla Foundation should be broken up. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably use machine learning to teach English from slashdot posts such as this. There are so many, most likely covering every common and obscure English rule in existence.
Shh! By your announcing it, the AI now knows the real reason, and will be taking each new grammar rule with a grain of salt!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a good point...
Although slashdot doesn't handle unicode.
Re: (Score:2)
A colon *PRECEDES* a list or a more detailed explanation of whatever was immediately before it.
A colon *PRECEDES* a government virtual weener in regulatory action.
Slow down, government! Donors to the politicians contemplating forcing a breakup haven't had enough time to financially maneuver to take advantage of a prospective forced breakup yet!
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but in that case the colon should be removed entirely, and it should read thus:
"Tech Giants Like Amazon and Facebook Should Be Regulated, Disrupted, or Broken Up" (Mozilla Foundation)
Explicitly using quotation marks to highlight the quote, and using parentheses to assign attribution to the quote, since it is not considered as important as the quote itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Inability to Follow Through (Score:2)
Maybe I'm alone, but its felt to me that increasingly the large tech companies have created internal structures which have resulted in their inability to execute on a product and see it to completion - to great fanfare they release half-baked products but never seem to complete, polish or iterate on them.
Pure speculation - they're rewarding employee that work on new products to a greater degree than existing ones which results in people skipping from project to project.
Re: (Score:2)
Like your inability to respond to the actual subject of the article?
Evidently you're unable to think for yourself - the point is that it seems unnecessary because the tech giants can't execute on new ideas.
Kinda get rage against Facebook but... (Score:2)
...not sure where rage against Amazon is coming from. They run their own store, they run a market that others can rent space in, they run some TV distribution, they run ebooks and an ebook reader to varying degrees of success. They also have a cloud platform that anyone could rent time on.
None of these are monopolistic. I disagreed with the idea of a patent for 1-click shopping, and it sounds like they could do a better job with their warehousing picking staff (ie, they should be on the clock as they are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...not sure where rage against Amazon is coming from. They run their own store, they run a market that others can rent space in, they run some TV distribution, they run ebooks and an ebook reader to varying degrees of success. They also have a cloud platform that anyone could rent time on.
None of these are monopolistic.
In ebooks, they have both an overwhelming share of the market in many English-speaking countries, and a Select programme that demands ebook exclusivity. If you hang out on writers' forums you'll hear the rage. With ebooks you're (hopefully) not talking about commodities, but in terms of whether it's monopolistic, the sheer size of Amazon's market means a lot of self-publishers and smaller publishers don't feel they can turn down the exclusivity, which comes with added visibility in the store and promotiona
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you cite something that supports your assertion? Can you cite something that shows that they have any real possibility of achieving that sort of position in the market?
Last time I checked I can go to any number of retail stores, wholesalers, and even catalog/internet sellers that have nothing to do with Amazon. Even if Amazon wants to be in that position I don't see how they could achieve it.
Web of distrust (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather share my data with 1 Google than with 10 independent Googles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Web of distrust (Score:2)
I would be ok with this in principal. But the issue is most people won't use fee-based services because they are poor or do not value their privacy. Which in turn means network services with fees will be unable to reach critical mass.
I really, really wish people would be willing to pay for a few high quality things rather than trying to maximize the number of things they have, but that's not how our society, culture, or economy is setup.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies are Bad: Opportunity to Educate (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoever is saying "so they are almost monopolies, what is the big deal?". Well, it is a big deal. The government in the US is starting to pay more and more attention. They don't want to hurt business in general, but they also do not want these near-monopolies to rule the US and much less the planet.
Mozilla is making this statement to educate the people. As much as I hated history as a youngster, the cliche of history repeating itself is very real. Go see how the public eventually is guaranteed to get screwed when there is a monopoly. Basic econ 101 states that monopolies will eventually charge more for crappier services because there is no competition. Smaller businesses are snuffed out, so those guys hate monopolies. Employees are taken advantage of, think Walmart employing so many in the US and the poor wages. Consumers get less choice, worse service, and higher prices, think one ISP in your town.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM and Microsoft too (Score:2)
Break up Tencent, Alibaba, and Baidu first (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, we could break up the American tech companies, but that would just leave the Chinese tech companies at the top of the heap.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand how the internet works, Tim?
Regulation helps the largest incumbents . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The fixed costs of regulation are spread against the total scale of the business being regulated. The larger the fixed costs, the more this implicitly helps the largest incumbents and disadvantages upstarts with small market share.
The GDPR is 261 pages of incomprehensible legalese (and people still can't figure basic questions about it), which will cost you the same in lawyer fees to understand whether you have 1M customers or 1B.
So yeah, Facebook has no damned problem if you regulate and probably stands to gain in the long terms whatever they lose in the short term.
Google? (Score:2)
Why not Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Only one in that list really scares me (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon - There are still local shops and individual web stores a like. There are even other major everything store - AliExpress for one (dubious as that might be). Don't like AWS Microsoft and a whole tone of other guys like Rackspace offer compute and storage.
facebook - Many tentacles sure but few 'essential services' You can still login pretty much everywhere without a facebook account, you communicate without facebook using e-mail, WWW forums, and for you nerds IRC and news.
On the other hand just try and do anything on the net without Google something or other. If nothing else half the pages you visit probably use googleapis. You have essentially one other smart phone vendor to choose from if you don't want a Google account. Even if you do use another e-mail provider, chances are good your recipient is on GMAIL or Google for Domains. Search is there any serious competition that isn't re-branding Google? Bing? sort of if you don't care about getting terrible results comparatively.
Of the big three Google is nearly impossible to avoid, Amazon and facebook can be avoided with some effort if you desire to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah but this is for a different reason. Spammers ruin everything. Any form you put online WILL be hammered by spammers 24/7. Facebook takes care of that for you.
And yes, there are things like Disqus too. The problem is that if Disqus became the standard of comment posting, Facebook or Google would buy them ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah but this is for a different reason. Spammers ruin everything.
Just require messages to be signed with PKI. For a while, you'll only get messages from nerds and extremely motivated commenters. Then you'll get messages from nerds and bots, but by that point you should be able to have a reasonable user base of actual nerds to make your own WOT. And if you don't have that user base, your blag didn't need comments in the first place.
Spammers ruin everything. [...] Facebook takes care of that for you.
Didn't spammers ruin Facebook, too? I think the Americans are convening their parliament over it.
Pros and cons (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ted Cruz really exposed some of the BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Zuckerberg could not explain why Facebook thought "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" and "Diamond and Silk" were such gross violations of "community standards" that they had to be banned. He also could not think of a single time that someone in their community guidelines enforcement had nuked a prominent left wing group on Facebook.
If a business as easily replaced as a local bakery cannot choose to impose its own standards on how it does business, a business as uniquely situated to exploit the market and block competition as Facebook sure as shit should not be able to do that. By law. (And before anyone cries "well what about a gay couple in Appalachia that can't find a baker." To that I would point out, if a gay couple can't find a baker willing to work with them where they live, they might want to first consider the OPSEC issues with having their "wedding" in that region if it's really that opposed to their orientation)
Bitter, much? (Score:3)
It really sounds to me like the few people still remaining at the Mozilla Foundation are expressing some passive aggressive bitterness, over their own loss of prominence in the market. Firefox (and even more-so, Netscape before it) was once a genuine player in the browser market, but now they've been relegated by most measurements to a weak second (or third) in the desktop market, and a veritable non-entity in the mobile market.
You had your heyday, Mozilla, but that's in the past and the digital world has changed in several strong leaps and bounds, since that time. Regardless of what you think the reasons were, there's not really much point in griping about the guys who now have what you lost... and no amount of finger pointing and gesticulating is going to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that I'm trolling, but you offer no argument at all to explain why. You know what it's called when you don't even bother to argue your point?
That's right... trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between offering no evidence at all, and offering evidence which you deem to be inadequate, for some reason.
As for my theory as to the motivations: Did you read the linked article at all, or view any of the pages on the so-called "internet health report" website? I'll just point you to a single pertinent page on the site, wherein we find Mozilla themselves essentially putting forth the very argument that you just discounted: Google dominates browser market [internethealthreport.org]. On that page, the Mozilla
Re: (Score:2)
if you genuinely believe that the current regime over at the Mozilla Foundation has absolutely no memory at all of those "glory days," than I'd suggest that maybe you're discounting human nature a bit too much.
I'm not saying they have "absolutely no memory" (a strawman in its absolutism), nor am I even saying they don't remember it daily and miss it in some fashion. But I think it very plausible that the people working there don't have a goal of "dominate the market", but instead feel well-motivated/validated by being the org that keeps the other players honest.
We are all prone to reflect upon our past successes, now and than; that's just a given. It seems to me that one of the "measures of a man" could be found in how you deal with the passing of those successes: do you gripe about someone else who has managed to pick up the torch that you've now lost?
You're going back to your premise that they're "griping" about their "loss". You seem to think that they're hung up on not being the top in market share
Re: (Score:2)
But I think it very plausible that the people working there don't have a goal of "dominate the market", but instead feel well-motivated/validated by being the org that keeps the other players honest.
It seems to me that there is a pretty big differences between keeping other players "honest" and suggesting to the government that other players will need to be broken up, in order to make them honest.
[You seem to be] ... Saying that they must remember being the top browser proves that they're resentful now and that said resentment drove the construction of their report. You have not evidenced that one bit. ...
I suppose I did not explicitly offer up certain details which support my point of view, because I felt they had already been voiced adequately enough in the original article and in the Shashdot summary. Don't you think that Mozilla is demonstrating a clear and unadulterated bias, specifically by advising the g
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that there is a pretty big differences between keeping other players "honest" and suggesting to the government that other players will need to be broken up, in order to make them honest.
Sure, why not. But in the scope of what we're talking about, that hardly makes them hypocrites, and certainly doesn't validate your central thesis about their motivation.
Don't you think that Mozilla is demonstrating a clear and unadulterated bias, specifically by advising the government to step in and rip to pieces those other mega-corporations with which Mozilla can no longer compete on equal footing?
You keep simply going back to your original thought, presuming it's obvious and shared by all who examine this situation. To answer your question: No, I don't think they're demonstrating a bias, at least not any that would lend to validating your point. What they're doing is perfectly consistent with wanting to improve the common good, a
Start with having the CDC ban social media.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Decentralized Protocols Instead of Services (Score:2)
Imagine a mesh network of protocols, where by you can use whatever client you want (web, gui, or text application) with whatever look 'n feel you want. Want to post some thoughts, post them tagged for relevance. Want to see some thoughts, query them based on relevance.. recency.. individuals or whatever.
It is a travesty that we have given others control of our user interfaces and computing resources so they can show us what they want us to see and they can use our computational power and memory for what t
No, the Schroedinger's cat doesn't "got my tongue" (Score:2)
As their capacity to make sense of massive amounts of data grows through advances in artificial intelligence and quantum computing
Wow! I had no idea quantum computing was ready for prime time!
I thought it was still a lab experiment of a handful of bits, with nobody sure if it was even working or not.
other options (Score:2)
Say cut the patent length in half it is transferred or companies above a certain size may not hold more than a set number of patents.
That'll keep them from building up a war chest of patents to smack down their smaller competitors.
*Any* big company... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll go farther, much farther. To prevent the "too big to fail syndrome", and excesses of corporate power, any big company should be broken up, or forced to divest. Pick a size, based on turnover, or market capitalization, or whatever.
Set that value relatively low. If market cap, then no more than $100 billion, possibly a lot less. Hitting that value should be extraordinarily painful, possibly including immediate closure. That way, that companies will divest voluntarily, in an organized fashion, long before they hit it.
As a corollary, I think acquisitions should be severely penalized. Too many big companies buy up the small companies that would eventually be their competition. Which makes the big company bigger, and stifles innovation.
Tech Giants Should Be Regulated... (Score:2)
Quantum computing my ass (Score:2)
Let Mozilla ... (Score:2)
... disrupt.
Not all super corporations are american (Score:2)
The problem with saying that these companies should be broken up is that there is that the United States is not the only country in the world.
Companies that operate internationally are all competing on the same playing field, but depending on which country their HQ is in, they are not necessarily playing by the same rules. The reason outsourcing is a thing is because those countries do not have the same labour laws.
My point: TenCent and Alibaba are Chinese companies. Why should China compel them to be br
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is no way of saying that Mozilla has a monopoly over anything.
Every time I log or go to google search or anything else google related, I am told I'll have better service or experience using their browser is an example of them leveraging their monopoly for alternative products
Re:Tech traitors like Mozilla... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla makes software for browsers. No monopoly.
They don't squeeze out competition, rake private data, and make the user the item for sale. They don't target industry segments, then low-ball that segment until it drips red blood as mom-and-pops die out, killing and maiming small business.
They don't read your every email for keywords to sell you something. Mozilla doesn't sell your private data to firms that would use it to apply bias to political processes.
Is Mozilla benign? By comparison, hell yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So other countries don't get that message when browsing to google sites?
Re: (Score:2)
I do, but only when I use the kids' PC.
Irritating, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla has an advantage over those companies: it is open sourced. Not only that, it is FREE software.
Being free means they get a lot of PITA nerds yelling at them about losing support for some 5 year old extensions, and zero revenue for their headache.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone losing want to have new regulation in place, everyone winning don't want the regulation to change.
But it seems to me that they forgot Oracle, Microsoft and IBM as well.
Re: (Score:2)