google internal memo leaked...
- Thread starter HanAholeSolo2.0
- Start date
google is now a verb (google it). point is, they have no direct legit competition for an important web utility we all use every day. they may not meet the legal definition of monopoly but they've cornered the search engine market.
I'm assuming @davidallen is a big free market fan who doesn't support regulating neutrality into search engine and social media policies.
whicj wouldn't be a problem if they weren't in the social justice business. their policies and subsequent actions in this case - while totally within their rights - simply further deintellectualize debate by allowing people never to have their conventions challenged.
not leading to a good place.
Microsoft, AOL.com, Yahoo, Badu (China) might disagree with you that they have cornered the search engine market. They are clearly the dominant player in the market.
As for the rest, I haven't stated or argued Google is immune from criticism for their policy decision in this whole issue...merely that they are within their rights to act as they have. I haven't really formulated an opinion as to whether what they did was the "right" thing to do under the circumstances. Reasonable minds could certainly disagree on that.
National Review, who I believe often behave as gaping vaginas, has weighed in, surprisingly.
The Mountain View Inquisition
by The EditorsAugust 8, 2017 5:30 PM
Alphabet, the parent company of Google, probably broke state and federal laws in its firing of engineer James Damore, who questioned the value and efficacy of the company’s diversity programs in an in-house forum intended for such discussion. California law forbids employers to discriminate against employees for their political views, and both state and federal laws protect the right of employees to discuss labor conditions — and that, rather than “diversity” as such, was the actual subject of Damore’s now-infamous memo.
The lawyers can sort that out — and Google has other discrimination claims on its plate, too, which is probably not irrelevant to this matter. Google may or may not have joined the ranks of petty law-breakers. It certainly has joined the ranks of petty commissars and little suppressors.
The campaign to lie about what Damore wrote, and to smear him as a bigot or a crank, already is well under way. His memo, which was labeled an “anti-diversity manifesto” in the press, is in fact something of the opposite: Throughout the document, Damore not only praises diversity in the abstract but also notes approvingly the ways in which Google tries to foster that diversity. “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes,” he wrote in response to the initial criticism. Not good enough for Google: He was fired for using stereotypes and for failing to value diversity.
Strange.
Damore’s argument is a familiar one: There are differences between men and women that are longstanding, general, and broad. Given that they are as near to universal as any aspect of human social life, it is unlikely that they are mere cultural expressions, “social constructs” in the modish language of the moment. While they are of practically no use in understanding any individual, they have some potential explanatory power when we consider such questions as why it is that women on average work fewer hours than men in similar occupations, or why women often choose lower-paying career paths (such as moving from sales into human resources) when they begin to have children. These differences very likely have biological origins. It is easy to make too much of such insights, and very easy to make too little of them, especially if one is in thrall to the feminist-multiculturalist fantasy of an infinitely plastic humanity.
In the case of a company such as Google — which selects its key employees from a very narrow slice of high-achieving people with math, science, and engineering backgrounds — this question is not merely theoretical. Google maintains aggressive diversity programs and spends generously on them, but its work force remains stubbornly disproportionately male and Asian or white. The times being what they are, Google is being sued by the federal government for “extreme” discrimination against women — a fact that almost certainly informed its decision to fire Damore.
Perhaps they should have listened to him instead.
Damore had some suggestions, and a great deal of praise for the company. If it is the case that women are on average more prone to suffer from anxiety, he argued, then Google should work to make leadership roles in the company less stressful — which, as he acknowledged, it already does. He suggested that the company embrace part-time work not only as a matter of policy but also as a matter of culture. He suggested that hiring practices that privilege “diversity” candidates and mentorship and development programs that exclude employees because of their race and/or sex not only are unfair but also fail to serve Google’s interests. Diversity, he wrote, is one Google asset among many, and one whose management should be optimized to meet the needs of the firm.
He also argued — and Google quickly confirmed — that nonconforming political and social ideas are ruthlessly suppressed and punished within the firm, that those holding conservative (or simply non-left) views are subjected to a hostile work environment, and that the predominance of conforming views creates a problem of confirmation bias.
Google has been challenged on its political biases before, and its executives’ responses have been illustrative. “The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness, and science-based thinking,” chairman Eric Schmidt said. “You’ll find that all of the other companies in our industry agree with us.” Schmidt is a very intelligent man, but perhaps not quite cultivated enough to sense why this uniformity of opinion might be evidence for Damore’s indictment of Google rather than evidence for his own defense of it.
Companies are free to forgo providing forums for the discussion of politics, policy, and issues relevant to their operations. They are even free to prohibit political discussion per se during work hours. But that is not what Google is up to here. Google is attempting, in its Orwellian way, to redefine “diversity” as “homogeneity,” to redefine the respect for genuine human differences as the demand for absolute conformity, to redefine openness as closure and tolerance as prohibition. Its bias problems are not limited to its personnel practices: Conservative outlets and publications are routinely excluded or marginalized by services such as YouTube and Google News, just as conservative voices frequently are silenced on Twitter and Facebook. We are reminded of our colleague Jay Nordlinger’s tales of bookstore clerks refusing to put conservative magazines on the shelves and vandalizing shipments of conservative books. Like Google, a bookstore is legally free to follow whatever inventory policies it likes, but when it targets unpopular political views, it becomes in spirit something like the opposite of a bookstore.
The founder of the House of Elsevier, forerunner to the publishing giant of that name, made his bones smuggling Galileo’s manuscripts out of Inquisition Italy into the Netherlands, where they could be printed. Our modern tech giants could — and sometimes do — perform a similar role, though sometimes, like Apple, they knuckle under to the censors. But Google here is guilty of more than cowardly accommodation: It has become the inquisitor, the persecutor, the enforcer of dogma, the suppressor. Irrespective of any decision about whether Google has behaved legally, it has behaved shamefully.
The Mountain View Inquisition
by The EditorsAugust 8, 2017 5:30 PM
Alphabet, the parent company of Google, probably broke state and federal laws in its firing of engineer James Damore, who questioned the value and efficacy of the company’s diversity programs in an in-house forum intended for such discussion. California law forbids employers to discriminate against employees for their political views, and both state and federal laws protect the right of employees to discuss labor conditions — and that, rather than “diversity” as such, was the actual subject of Damore’s now-infamous memo.
The lawyers can sort that out — and Google has other discrimination claims on its plate, too, which is probably not irrelevant to this matter. Google may or may not have joined the ranks of petty law-breakers. It certainly has joined the ranks of petty commissars and little suppressors.
The campaign to lie about what Damore wrote, and to smear him as a bigot or a crank, already is well under way. His memo, which was labeled an “anti-diversity manifesto” in the press, is in fact something of the opposite: Throughout the document, Damore not only praises diversity in the abstract but also notes approvingly the ways in which Google tries to foster that diversity. “I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes,” he wrote in response to the initial criticism. Not good enough for Google: He was fired for using stereotypes and for failing to value diversity.
Strange.
Damore’s argument is a familiar one: There are differences between men and women that are longstanding, general, and broad. Given that they are as near to universal as any aspect of human social life, it is unlikely that they are mere cultural expressions, “social constructs” in the modish language of the moment. While they are of practically no use in understanding any individual, they have some potential explanatory power when we consider such questions as why it is that women on average work fewer hours than men in similar occupations, or why women often choose lower-paying career paths (such as moving from sales into human resources) when they begin to have children. These differences very likely have biological origins. It is easy to make too much of such insights, and very easy to make too little of them, especially if one is in thrall to the feminist-multiculturalist fantasy of an infinitely plastic humanity.
In the case of a company such as Google — which selects its key employees from a very narrow slice of high-achieving people with math, science, and engineering backgrounds — this question is not merely theoretical. Google maintains aggressive diversity programs and spends generously on them, but its work force remains stubbornly disproportionately male and Asian or white. The times being what they are, Google is being sued by the federal government for “extreme” discrimination against women — a fact that almost certainly informed its decision to fire Damore.
Perhaps they should have listened to him instead.
Damore had some suggestions, and a great deal of praise for the company. If it is the case that women are on average more prone to suffer from anxiety, he argued, then Google should work to make leadership roles in the company less stressful — which, as he acknowledged, it already does. He suggested that the company embrace part-time work not only as a matter of policy but also as a matter of culture. He suggested that hiring practices that privilege “diversity” candidates and mentorship and development programs that exclude employees because of their race and/or sex not only are unfair but also fail to serve Google’s interests. Diversity, he wrote, is one Google asset among many, and one whose management should be optimized to meet the needs of the firm.
He also argued — and Google quickly confirmed — that nonconforming political and social ideas are ruthlessly suppressed and punished within the firm, that those holding conservative (or simply non-left) views are subjected to a hostile work environment, and that the predominance of conforming views creates a problem of confirmation bias.
Google has been challenged on its political biases before, and its executives’ responses have been illustrative. “The company was founded under the principles of freedom of expression, diversity, inclusiveness, and science-based thinking,” chairman Eric Schmidt said. “You’ll find that all of the other companies in our industry agree with us.” Schmidt is a very intelligent man, but perhaps not quite cultivated enough to sense why this uniformity of opinion might be evidence for Damore’s indictment of Google rather than evidence for his own defense of it.
Companies are free to forgo providing forums for the discussion of politics, policy, and issues relevant to their operations. They are even free to prohibit political discussion per se during work hours. But that is not what Google is up to here. Google is attempting, in its Orwellian way, to redefine “diversity” as “homogeneity,” to redefine the respect for genuine human differences as the demand for absolute conformity, to redefine openness as closure and tolerance as prohibition. Its bias problems are not limited to its personnel practices: Conservative outlets and publications are routinely excluded or marginalized by services such as YouTube and Google News, just as conservative voices frequently are silenced on Twitter and Facebook. We are reminded of our colleague Jay Nordlinger’s tales of bookstore clerks refusing to put conservative magazines on the shelves and vandalizing shipments of conservative books. Like Google, a bookstore is legally free to follow whatever inventory policies it likes, but when it targets unpopular political views, it becomes in spirit something like the opposite of a bookstore.
The founder of the House of Elsevier, forerunner to the publishing giant of that name, made his bones smuggling Galileo’s manuscripts out of Inquisition Italy into the Netherlands, where they could be printed. Our modern tech giants could — and sometimes do — perform a similar role, though sometimes, like Apple, they knuckle under to the censors. But Google here is guilty of more than cowardly accommodation: It has become the inquisitor, the persecutor, the enforcer of dogma, the suppressor. Irrespective of any decision about whether Google has behaved legally, it has behaved shamefully.
Last edited:
We've been talking about the selling of ads.
• Google owns less than 3% of the global advertising market
And the argument he's using doesn't meet the legal definition of a monopoly.
We were talking about monopolies.
I'll let you presume to know more than Thiel about the industry.
I'll let you presume to know more than Thiel about the industry.
Last edited:
My issue with Google/YouTube and Twitter is that they are filtering and preventing other points of view. This is something they have a right to do as a private company. However, by doing as much new platforms will arise and it will only further silo discussion into separate echo chambers which stifles debate and discussion that can lead to understanding and even solutions. Inevitably I believe this leads to more chaos, more hate, more protests, more violence, and pushes society closer to the brink.
With what's transpired in the past year, the next time I need to replace my phone, I'll search for a decent option without an Android or Apple platform.
Hell, might even go old school:
In the online ad market.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
I do admit to being more focused on government intervention as a pragmatic market libertarian. I have no problem with people going after any marketplace private company because they disagree with the company's actions...boycotts, public shaming, actively using their marketplace decisions to avoid giving them $$ like @CBradSmith is talking about.
I agree. I have a huge aversion to government interference. I see new platforms developing with no issue. I just can't help but feel that in such a situation the only individuals that will frequent a platform with a majority opposing view will be trolls.
Not sure how to remedy what I think is an inevitable outcome . I mean, look at Gab. It will not filter any speech due to ideology or anything like that. But it's not competing with Twitter in the least. At least not that I'm aware of.
Unfortunately, I think the majority of people are more than okay with voluntarily giving up rights to corporations they'd never sacrifice to the government...all in the name of convenience.
Hell, we're all guilty of giving up too much of our privacy to credit card companies and corporate big data.
Convenience and instant gratification. It's so unfortunate. And to make it worse, the government just goes to these corporations to get the information they desire.
I didn't claim to know "more about Thiel about the industry". I said he wasn't using the legal definition of monopoly.
And he's not.
Thiel says a monopoly is "a kind of company that's so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute," a company that's "10x" better at what it does than anybody else.
That's why, the investor continues, businesses are succesful to the extent that they do what others can't, that they "escape competition" with other companies, thus hamstringing the ability to make profits, take care of their employees, and plan for the future.
That is not the legal definition of monopoly. Hell it's not even a layman/dictionary definition.
"Monopoly is therefore not a pathology or an exception," Thiel concludes. "Monopoly is the condition of every successful business."
Again, not the legal definition of monopoly. No, a monopoly is not the condition of every successful business.
Is it typical for lawyers to use dictionary.com as legal reference?
Why does every business school use Ggle as the reference for monopoly?
Why does every business school use Ggle as the reference for monopoly?
I said he didn't use the legal definition nor layman definition in my last post.
And he doesn't.
But hey, if you want to get in depth about legal definitions and whether Thiel's meets it....go for it. Good starting place for you.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
My want to start with this little tidbit that goes directly counter to his definition..
"Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications."
You're gonna have to prove your spurious (IMO) unverifiable contention "that every business school use Ggle as the reference for monopoly". I just continue to think you're basically just making that shit up out of whole cloth otherwise. I find it highly more likely that they use US v Microsoft as the reference for monopoly.
The Sherman Act sets the threshold at 70%. What's the search %? ~73%
That's a monopoly. That's why it's taught everywhere.
That's a monopoly. That's why it's taught everywhere.
1. You haven't proven it's taught everywhere.
2. Actually the Sherman Act doesn't have a brightline number. Since the passage of the Sherman Act, however, court rulings have shaped the definition of monopoly power. Proving that a company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act requires more than just proving that the company exercised a monopoly. A plaintiff or the government must show that a monopoly existed, and that said power was accompanied by some anti-competitive act by the offending company in a relevant market. Several cases talking about market share and monopoly power here.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competi...conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2
3. You previously said they are in the business of selling ads and they have a monopoly there. Now you wanna talk about search engine percentage? A service they don't charge the user for.
4. All of this is an attempted distraction and a pivot away from the fact that what I said about Thiel not using a legal definition of monopoly in his statements was absolutely correct. He wasn't.
Last edited:
I laughed.
This is what you do....
"Google is a monopoly in the selling of ads"....
Get shut down. Never actually back it up.
"Peter Thiel says they're a monopoly..."
Get shut down. Never actually back it up
Sherman Act says...
Get shut down. Never actually back it up.
Google monopoly is taught in every business school...
Get's called out for the bs claim. Never actually prove it.
Moves away from American law because he got shut down there and cites a news article that talks about a breach of "EU antitrust rules"...despite railing against European socialism and giving up of sovereignty in multiple other occasions. Completely ignores other parts of the article that mention things like "The long-running investigation of Google is at centre of a broader effort in Europe to bring Silicon Valley companies to heel on competition, privacy and taxation and has caused tensions between Brussels and Washington.
President Obama has claimed the actions are designed to protect the commercial interests of European companies. Ms Vestager denied any protectionism."
Somehow thinks that proves his original contention way back at the beginning right...because some EU official says they have violated socialistic EU regulations.
Keep moving your target Alpha. Keep straying away from the original contentions, Alpha. Go ahead and declare victory, Alpha. Think what you want. I've said all I need to. I'm done.
http://fairsearch.org/one-more-time-with-feeling-googles-a-monopoly/
Former DOJ Assistant Attorney General, Tom Barnett: “As this committee recognizes, undoubtedly, Google has monopoly power in search and paid search advertising.”
Barnett: “Let me tell you what I’m talking about. The first element of a Section 2 monopolization claim is, is Google a dominant company; do they have monopoly power? I think, as this committee recognizes, undoubtedly, Google has monopoly power in search and paid search advertising. You don’t have to take my word for it. You all heard it. Both the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have conducted extensive investigations in this area, and both of them, the expert agencies, reached factual determinations that show that Google has a monopoly power.” “If you have an 80 percent share of the market with barriers to entry, you have monopoly power. And those barriers don’t come from the supposed cost of switching or clicking to another site. The barriers come from building an effective search engine.” “So from a Sherman Act monopolization/monopoly maintenance perspective, is there a problem? Yes, there is a problem if Google is engaging in any improper conduct to maintain or to expand its dominance.” “I consider Google to be a dominant company with monopoly power at least in search and search advertising; likely in other markets — its mobile search, mobile advertising; mobile operating systems, it’s quickly moving in that direction; maps and a number of other areas.” “And I think that they are — have monopoly power both because there are expert agencies who have looked into this and — and concluded that. But I take the words of Mr. Schmidt, there are huge barriers to entry to getting into search.” “There is no doubt that a dominant company with monopoly power can harm competition in a way that a company without that monopoly power cannot. And that puts a special responsibility on the company to engage in fair competition on the merits, and not to exclude competitors.” “First of all, remember they are an advertising company. They made $30 billion last year in advertising. And given that they’re dominant in advertising, a good portion of that is already monopoly rents.”
Former DOJ Assistant Attorney General, Tom Barnett: “As this committee recognizes, undoubtedly, Google has monopoly power in search and paid search advertising.”
Barnett: “Let me tell you what I’m talking about. The first element of a Section 2 monopolization claim is, is Google a dominant company; do they have monopoly power? I think, as this committee recognizes, undoubtedly, Google has monopoly power in search and paid search advertising. You don’t have to take my word for it. You all heard it. Both the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have conducted extensive investigations in this area, and both of them, the expert agencies, reached factual determinations that show that Google has a monopoly power.” “If you have an 80 percent share of the market with barriers to entry, you have monopoly power. And those barriers don’t come from the supposed cost of switching or clicking to another site. The barriers come from building an effective search engine.” “So from a Sherman Act monopolization/monopoly maintenance perspective, is there a problem? Yes, there is a problem if Google is engaging in any improper conduct to maintain or to expand its dominance.” “I consider Google to be a dominant company with monopoly power at least in search and search advertising; likely in other markets — its mobile search, mobile advertising; mobile operating systems, it’s quickly moving in that direction; maps and a number of other areas.” “And I think that they are — have monopoly power both because there are expert agencies who have looked into this and — and concluded that. But I take the words of Mr. Schmidt, there are huge barriers to entry to getting into search.” “There is no doubt that a dominant company with monopoly power can harm competition in a way that a company without that monopoly power cannot. And that puts a special responsibility on the company to engage in fair competition on the merits, and not to exclude competitors.” “First of all, remember they are an advertising company. They made $30 billion last year in advertising. And given that they’re dominant in advertising, a good portion of that is already monopoly rents.”
I concede. I am no match for your premier googling skills. Tired of arguing against the opinions of random people dug up on the internet...including attorneys that represent (surprise!) some of Google's competitors in the online ad selling market and the options of their competitors. You win. You beat me down. Congratulations.
A final question though:
Why do you think Trump/Sessions haven't gone after such an obvious monopolist for violations of the Sherman Act. It's clear he has no love for them. What's stopping him?
A final question though:
Why do you think Trump/Sessions haven't gone after such an obvious monopolist for violations of the Sherman Act. It's clear he has no love for them. What's stopping him?
You condescending prick. I walked you here since you're first priggish statement.
Google skills? I can't hold a candle to your dictionary.com legal definitions.
How much does Google spread around Washington? And what alphabet agencies use their data?
Google skills? I can't hold a candle to your dictionary.com legal definitions.
How much does Google spread around Washington? And what alphabet agencies use their data?
Last edited:
Walked me here....yeah...sure...okay....whatever. You didn't walk me anywhere, and you were definitely googling up opinions and posting the opinions rather than using your own arguments. It's the opinions of those individuals that led to the following admission.
To the extent that I was arguing that Google was obviously, clearly and definitively not a monopoly in the selling of internet advertising is was absolutely wrong. I'm am still of the opinion that they have not yet reached that status, but you definitively established that there is substantial support for the contra opinion. That the contra opinion is not absurd, and that reasonable minds can disagree on the question.
Thiel's definition of monopoly is still outside any established legal or layman definition of monopoly. That article is nothing but an argument for redefining what is meant by monopoly and change what we think and how we think of them.
Finally, your assertion that Google is taught as the monopoly at every business school is hyperbolic, unproven, and inaccurate as far as I am concerned until you...you know....actually provide proof that it is, in fact, taught in every business school as the monopoly.
No.
I used the term Kleenex to refer to all tissues. Doesn't mean I think Kleenex has a monopoly on the facial tissue market.
I use the brand name Xerox as a verb and and adjective routinely (xerox copy...my Secretary is xeroxing that for you). Doesn't mean I believe Xerox is a monopoly in photocopying.
What changed my mind is that he posted links to people making compelling and factually supported arguments in support of an opinion different than mine.
Walked me here....yeah...sure...okay....whatever. You didn't walk me anywhere, and you were definitely googling up opinions and posting the opinions rather than using your own arguments. It's the opinions of those individuals that led to the following admission.
To the extent that I was arguing that Google was obviously, clearly and definitively not a monopoly in the selling of internet advertising is was absolutely wrong. I'm am still of the opinion that they have not yet reached that status, but you definitively established that there is substantial support for the contra opinion. That the contra opinion is not absurd, and that reasonable minds can disagree on the question.
Thiel's definition of monopoly is still outside any established legal or layman definition of monopoly. That article is nothing but an argument for redefining what is meant by monopoly and change what we think and how we think of them.
Finally, your assertion that Google is taught as the monopoly at every business school is hyperbolic, unproven, and inaccurate as far as I am concerned until you...you know....actually provide proof that it is, in fact, taught in every business school as the monopoly.
You had zero information, just opinion. This is covered territory to anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of tech and has been for years.
i was joking. the semantics aren't important. Google is whatever it is. the question is does an overwhelmingly dominant market share of an essential component of business and personal life constitute a utility?
and if so, doesn't their internal intolerance of ideological diversity create concerns about thei potential for hijacking search content?
if so, what if anything is the solution?
I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens as these companies change the environment that nurtured the things that made them great.
@davidallen, did you bail when things got tough? Let's explore this whole no physiological analysis, no predictive model thing. Let's talk pure science without political filters.
You accept manmade climate change without accurate predictive models. You accept manmade climate change without established causation. Why is this biological science any different in your eyes (besides the fact that there are actual predictive models and established causation)? Are your beliefs purely ideologically driven? Serious question sir.
Ummmm just stepped of an airplane with much bigger fish to fry than this thread?
MMCC is not something that needs to be accepted - CC is in fact observable, model supported and potentially lethal to humanity... you getting hung up on human contribution is an amusing side show while the earth is changing around you.
SMH. davidallen, the climate on this 4 billion year old planet has always been changing, for like 4 billion years. My getting hung up on the human contribution is amusing? Huh. That's the entire basis of the climate policy of the left. I'm not the one hung up on human contribution my friend. That's all your side.
Regarding the models, you do realize that they haven't been correct at all, right? They aren't even close. An objective look at their performance over the years reveals that they always over estimate. That chronic over estimation is what leads to emotional bullshit like "potentially lethal to humanity." I'm all for pollution reduction and cleaner air. I'm not for climate policy based on the emotions that alarmism produces.
There is plenty of observable evidence about the models and what they've produced at this point. The left has turned to screeching "denier" and "97%" because they know reality doesn't support their ideological agenda and green energy ventures. Just like Big Oil, follow the money. Folks like Al Gore have gotten ridiculously wealthy peddling alarmism.
Before all is said and done, this will be judged as the era of some of the worst science in human history, and that's sayin a lot.
We're no closer to understanding any of this than we were $300 billion ago.
We're getting about $1 dollar of real data for every $50,000 spent.
We're no closer to understanding any of this than we were $300 billion ago.
We're getting about $1 dollar of real data for every $50,000 spent.
The money spent is all that counts. Everyone from the scientists getting grants for predetermined conclusions to Obama's buddies at Solyndra are getting paid. The ignorant and compliant masses suckling the big floppy tit of the narrative don't know any better because just accepting what you're fed is much easier than cooking for yourself.
My legal dictionary's definition of monopoly:
"A description of a a market condition where all or nearly all of an article of trade or commerce within a community or district is brought within the single control of one person or company, thereby excluding competition of free traffic in that article."
In what does Google supposedly have a monopoly?
What are they filtering out?
Thor, I must get back to work, as typing the above definition has about exhausted my regular break. However.... consider this perspective (which is heretical to many on my side of the aisle):
Suppressing speech is a losing proposition, particularly in this country. The best and most effective antidote to speech, speech suppression or censorship is: 1. Education, and 2. More speech (i.e. non-regulation).
Citizens United was correct (I've gone 180 degrees on this) because it enabled a fire hose of speech instead of a trickle. We've already seen a dilution of the impact of tv advertising (i.e. $) in politics if the MAGA crowd is to be believed. Voters were numbed by the fire hose of tv advertising.
"Conservative" doctrine of not regulating speech (e.g. Justice Kennedy's position -- not necessarily a conservative or liberal overlay imo, but let's go with it since the SCOTUS breakdown goes along those lines) will kick in. It already has from the posts on this board. Some market participant will likely flank a search engine that engages in censorship, thereby vindicating both the free market and free speech.
The problem isn't google, btw -- it's simply lack of education. Our population desperately needs some education to identify bullshit and propaganda. You can regulate and speak all day, but if people are simply ignorant and close minded it won't end well.
"A description of a a market condition where all or nearly all of an article of trade or commerce within a community or district is brought within the single control of one person or company, thereby excluding competition of free traffic in that article."
In what does Google supposedly have a monopoly?
What are they filtering out?
Thor, I must get back to work, as typing the above definition has about exhausted my regular break. However.... consider this perspective (which is heretical to many on my side of the aisle):
Suppressing speech is a losing proposition, particularly in this country. The best and most effective antidote to speech, speech suppression or censorship is: 1. Education, and 2. More speech (i.e. non-regulation).
Citizens United was correct (I've gone 180 degrees on this) because it enabled a fire hose of speech instead of a trickle. We've already seen a dilution of the impact of tv advertising (i.e. $) in politics if the MAGA crowd is to be believed. Voters were numbed by the fire hose of tv advertising.
"Conservative" doctrine of not regulating speech (e.g. Justice Kennedy's position -- not necessarily a conservative or liberal overlay imo, but let's go with it since the SCOTUS breakdown goes along those lines) will kick in. It already has from the posts on this board. Some market participant will likely flank a search engine that engages in censorship, thereby vindicating both the free market and free speech.
The problem isn't google, btw -- it's simply lack of education. Our population desperately needs some education to identify bullshit and propaganda. You can regulate and speak all day, but if people are simply ignorant and close minded it won't end well.
