Amazon, Facebook and Google Turn To Deep Network of Political Allies To Battle Back Antitrust Probes (washingtonpost.com) 26
Under the withering microscope of government watchdogs, tech giants including Amazon, Facebook and Google have funded a bevy of political groups that have helped push positive polling and engaged in other fingerprint-free tactics designed to deter regulators who are seeking to break up or penalize the industry. The approach reflects the growing threats they now face from the Justice Department and the country's top attorneys general, who have been investigating them on antitrust grounds. From a report: The Connected Commerce Council, for example, is a Washington-based nonprofit that bills itself as a voice for small businesses. But it counts Amazon, Facebook and Google as "partners," and in recent months the group known as 3C has put its muscle to work arguing that Silicon Valley giants do not threaten competition, stifle smaller rivals and harm consumers in the process. Espinoza, a bootmaker by profession, said he was approached by 3C last year after he participated in a Google seminar meant to help small businesses better use digital tools. The advocacy group then wrote the opinion piece largely on his behalf, which appeared online just days after state attorneys general announced their antitrust probe of the company. The opinion piece did not indicate that 3C largely penned it. Espinoza said he still supported Google, whose technology, including its ad tools now under government investigation, have helped his company reach new customers across the country. But he also said he didn't know about Google's relationship with 3C, a group of which he is a member, before being contacted by The Post this week.
Jake Ward, the president of 3C, said his organization represents thousands of small businesses, not Silicon Valley's largest players. The organization often seeks to encourage corporate founders to share their views publicly, he added. "It is our responsibility, on behalf of our small business members, to protect the existing model and promote the market, which is working exceedingly well" Ward said, later adding: "We are not, and will not work for, Big Tech." Amazon and Facebook declined to comment. Julie Tarallo McAlister, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a statement that the company supports "a range of organizations like the Connected Commerce Council that are working to help small businesses grow and prosper online." Silicon Valley tech giants -- and companies across a range of industries -- often back a wide array of advocacy groups to boost their political fortunes. They aren't required to disclose how much they spend on these organizations and exactly how involved they are in their day-to-day decisions, but ethics watchdogs say their participation alone is important.
Jake Ward, the president of 3C, said his organization represents thousands of small businesses, not Silicon Valley's largest players. The organization often seeks to encourage corporate founders to share their views publicly, he added. "It is our responsibility, on behalf of our small business members, to protect the existing model and promote the market, which is working exceedingly well" Ward said, later adding: "We are not, and will not work for, Big Tech." Amazon and Facebook declined to comment. Julie Tarallo McAlister, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a statement that the company supports "a range of organizations like the Connected Commerce Council that are working to help small businesses grow and prosper online." Silicon Valley tech giants -- and companies across a range of industries -- often back a wide array of advocacy groups to boost their political fortunes. They aren't required to disclose how much they spend on these organizations and exactly how involved they are in their day-to-day decisions, but ethics watchdogs say their participation alone is important.
Bribed and bullied. Not allies. (Score:1)
If you break them up... (Score:2, Insightful)
...here's who will replace them.
Alibaba/Aliexpress
WeChat
Baidu
Then there is nothing the USA can do. Better to have a hometown monopoly and keep the money here, instead of it going into the coffers of Party HQ in Peking.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Slashdot was supposed to be the first to welcome our corporate overlords.
Bait and switch (Score:5, Informative)
These companies are simply bait-and-switch artists on a massive scale. The value proposition of "connect with your friends" or "buy online cheaply" while burying all varieties of nefarious behavior under the rug (until they can't any more) is systematically worsened at a calculated rate to optimize profits while avoiding legal action.
Even politically pro-business companies will learn their lesson as Amazon systematically mines all their data to know -exactly- how and when to replace them with Amazon's own products. They provide value to Amazon to then be thrown under the bus exactly as soon as Amazon can make a few cents extra profit.
Like everything else, bait and switch "but now on a computer!" doesn't change the underlying nature of it. Fool me once...
I'm an introvert (Score:1)
If you're an extroverted nerd life is pretty crappy. You're not a nerd because you're uncomfortable around people, your a nerd because you're kind of weird. Facebook for all it's faults makes it easy to find other weirdos to hang out with.
I'm not saying Facebook isn't problematic or even good, just that it does what it says on the tin: it connects you with people.
Re:I'm an introvert (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other side of the argument, the evidence suggests that high levels of Facebook use leads to higher incidence of depression, so whether it "works as advertised" is a debatable question.
But, overall, Facebook could be quite self-sustaining and profitable without all the hidden behavior (like "supercookie" internet-wide tracking) and selling all your data while giving you UI controls to "control your privacy" which, has been demonstrated, are ultimately just flipping a toggle connected to nothing.
But "good profits" isn't sufficient. "Maximized profits" are what the system will always go for, without some form of constraint.
Do I have a solution? Well, ask me in a few decades. I intend to directly show you the solution.
Just a guess, but (Score:2)
Let's see, Google, Amazon and Facebook combined own more money than any country (in some cases, many countries combined). Politicians can be bribed, I mean lobbied. Am I spelling "status quo" correctly? The best chance that we have on regulating these companies is to employ folks from the BLM movement to be the watchdogs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
no sarcasm tags, sooo.... BLM = Black Lives Matter.
We're not too big... then proves otherwise (Score:3)
> tech giants including Amazon, Facebook and Google have funded a bevy of political groups that have helped push positive polling and engaged in other fingerprint-free tactics designed to deter regulators who are seeking to break up or penalize the industry.
Amazon, Facebook and Google: "We're not so big that we can unfairly influence the market."
Amazon, Facebook and Google: Proceeds to unfairly influence the market...
What is the difference (Score:3)
Every industry spends an excessive amount of earnings on lobbyists attempting to sway or pay legislators for friendly legislation. Why is this any different. Additionally, isn't it the responsibility of the FTC to investigate and enforce anti-trust laws?
I don't believe that just because a company runs an extremely successful business and captures most of the market that that mandates the definition of a monopoly. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, none are monopolies.
As far as anti-trust is concerned buying up competition as a means to capture all business for the ability to control pricing, is an issue. But, what that platform does with the eyes it has earned, how it presents product, how it decides to order results, what results it deems appropriate within it's TOS are 100 percent the platforms decision [as long as paid placement is disclosed].
Whereas, the companies mentioned are as large as Ma'bell at the time it was broken up, there's a big difference. The difference is that consumers aren't just limited to a twisted pair pipe preventing their choice or eliminating any competition.
Today anyone with an idea for a service or product can launch their product with very minimal investment. If consumers find value or need, it can be successful [or viral] overnight. By no means are the products or services available for producers or consumers finate. The field is more crowded, consumers more educated, and the service is of higher quality than ever before. But there's still so much more to be done.
Re: What is the difference (Score:2, Interesting)
Anti-trust is when they use their monopoly in one area such as search or owning App Store or owning the means of sales amd distribution and abusing that to take over other verticals they don't own.
They are all VERY clearly guilty of textbook anti trust violations. They should have been stopped years ago but better late than never. These are rock solid, air tight cases. If the DoJ goes for it they'll knuckle under fast after the initial rounds because better
Re: (Score:2)
'' owning App Store or owning the means of sales and distribution''
Clearly, the ''app stores are an exception'' especially if you are a user of the '''forbidden fruit''. Search platforms attempt to provide the highest quality relevant and useful results for user queries. If they failed to provide these results, users would migrate. Intelligent users and the media consistently publish weaknesses in the the platforms returns, providing consumers with valuable information necessary to evaluate the results retu
Re: What is the difference (Score:1)
I pay a good chunk of money every year to each of Amazon, Apple, and Google for various products and services. I do it with the understanding I'm supporting anti-trust violators because *at that moment i
You've been living in a dream world, Neo (Score:5, Interesting)
Morpheus: "What if I told you the primary purpose of these regulations is to threaten to hurt the companies unless they play ball with donations?"
The Merovingian: "Corruption is the way of the world. You just need to hide it better in the west. If there is a kernal of validity to the regulation, so much the better to gain followers to give power to the politician, who can mouth the surface reasons to give your genetalia a rush of blood, all the while waggling his fingers behind his back."
The Architect: "But you've already made your choice, even if you don't realize it yet. Endorphin response triggers synapses in the brain, blood flow quickens, in 1200 milliseconds your muscles will begin to react and you will reach for the downmod button, exactly as predicted by meme theory, where the surface meme gets you to act in ways that protect it. You can't possibly believe your are part of a machine, with predictable responses.
"I assure you. We have used this strategy before thousands of times, and have become exceedingly efficient at it."
Walk Away (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a wasted post but... I've shutdown my accounts on Twitter, FB, Insta, etc. I did that several years ago. And I'm selling my Amazon stock, stopping my Prime membership, and making an effort to buy from other web sites. e.g. for cameras and electronics, B&H or Adorama have all the same toys at roughly the same prices.
This is the only real capitalistic approach.
From what I believe, it seems like FB, et. al. should NOT be called "platforms" but should be called "publishers" AND, (again, based upon what I believe) the concept seems like a valid concept to keep. A true "platform" should be protected.
I'd like to see what happens if this designation is changed and nothing else. I'd like to see how the market (i.e. slime lawyers) react and how FB, et. al. react before contemplating any other legislation.
I'm also aware that what I believe may not be valid or true.
Adaptable Laws For The Rich (Score:3)
Our whole system is a dumpster fire. These rascals don't even need to have a march to get their way. Just toss a couple of bags of cash to the right lawmakers and all is well.
The greed is so out of control that I don't think we can get it under control without a war.
The system has failed.
It's ironic ... (Score:2)
"The approach reflects the growing threats they now face from the Justice Department and the country's top attorneys general, who have been investigating them on antitrust grounds."
Never mind the threat that Google, Twitter and Facebook are to the 1st Amendment with their infamous, notoriously vague and self-serving "Terms of Service". It's time Congress imposed the 1st Amendment upon those demagogues or break them up.
No More.... (Score:3)
The simple truth is we need to do away with lobbyist groups and promote more direct path for real citizens to "lobby" their legislators.
No-one will bite (Score:2)
Monotheistic religion, national identity, mum and dad, self-employment, individual rights: These are the flag-bearers of western culture and the very icons the wealthy demand the working-class admire while privately doing the exact opposite.
Espinoza said he still supported Google ...
This is the problem with winner-takes-all capitalism: As long as the working-class gets the scraps, no-one will bite the hand that feeds them.