• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Google is in some trouble.

"Arizona began probing Google "

I hope somebody 'probes' Jeff Bezos. 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: W54/XM-388
And exactly what does Arizona think it will do to stop Google? Talk about tilting at windmills...

The shit needs to get stopped at a federal level. Fortunately, Trump is about to bust up the social media and tech company monopolies... no, wait, he's just throwing a tantrum because Twitter is "fact checking" his tweets or something like that. I don't object to yanking Twitter's Section 230 protection, but really that's a tiny drop in a very large bucket of what needs to be done.
 
And exactly what does Arizona think it will do to stop Google? Talk about tilting at windmills...

The shit needs to get stopped at a federal level. Fortunately, Trump is about to bust up the social media and tech company monopolies... no, wait, he's just throwing a tantrum because Twitter is "fact checking" his tweets or something like that. I don't object to yanking Twitter's Section 230 protection, but really that's a tiny drop in a very large bucket of what needs to be done.
They need more controls over them like the Europeans have.
Why do you think Zuckerberg looked so freaked out on the news this AM.
I don't use Twitter at all, I have a Facebook account but I've never posted anything and I don't use Google.
People are clueless as to how much information they freely give away about their daily lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E. Bryant
"The most valuable commodity I know of....is informarion".

-Gordon Gecko
 
They need more controls over them like the Europeans have.
Why do you think Zuckerberg looked so freaked out on the news this AM.
I don't use Twitter at all, I have a Facebook account but I've never posted anything and I don't use Google.
People are clueless as to how much information they freely give away about their daily lives.
Do you really think that not using google prevents google from collecting data? Any idea how many sites use their source code? Most of them. Conspiracy theories aside, I believe google is a CIa/NSa front. I mean hell the parent comaonynisnABc corp..
 
If we ever achieve the days of interstellar commerce, the transport of material goods will be highly prohibitive in bulk. The value of a thing will be largely based upon the cost of transport.

Information will be one of, if not the most valuable, of commodities. It need not be transported by material means at all.

Greg
 
  • Like
Reactions: W54/XM-388
They need more controls over them like the Europeans have.
Why do you think Zuckerberg looked so freaked out on the news this AM.
I don't use Twitter at all, I have a Facebook account but I've never posted anything and I don't use Google.
People are clueless as to how much information they freely give away about their daily lives.
People are clueless, for sure, but further regulation of a free market isn’t the need. Privacy protections from government intrusion and surveillance is the benchmark and where it should stop. The EU is definitely not the place to look for guidance on how to run the US.
 
People are clueless, for sure, but further regulation of a free market isn’t the need. Privacy protections from government intrusion and surveillance is the benchmark and where it should stop. The EU is definitely not the place to look for guidance on how to run the US.

The Europeans got it generally right with GDPR. We are way behind.

There is no "free market" when it comes to Big Tech.
 
The Europeans got it generally right with GDPR. We are way behind.

There is no "free market" when it comes to Big Tech.
Regulation still isn’t freedom of enterprise. That’s my hang up.

Users of Google services and hardware willingly give access to their info. If they don’t like it, they can use another product or no product at all.
 
How do we justify that when the general public pays no money for any of their services?

The fact that 'services' are provided with the intent of/full knowledge of accumulating all of the users metadata and selling it as part of the business plan. This isn't a byproduct, this IS the product, and it was always intended to be that way.

You can't argue against the fact that they are a business, with large operating costs and have never had a subscription fee. How did they plan on staying in business as a 'free' service?

It was always the intent. YOU are the product.
 
If we ever achieve the days of interstellar commerce, the transport of material goods will be highly prohibitive in bulk. The value of a thing will be largely based upon the cost of transport.

Information will be one of, if not the most valuable, of commodities. It need not be transported by material means at all.

Greg

There are a few different trains of thought on that.

Depending on technology, there is the possibility that it could be faster to carry a physical message than to rely on a transmitted message if you work out FTL travel but haven't worked out some kind of FTL communication system.
 
The fact that 'services' are provided with the intent of/full knowledge of accumulating all of the users metadata and selling it as part of the business plan. This isn't a byproduct, this IS the product, and it was always intended to be that way.

You can't argue against the fact that they are a business, with large operating costs and have never had a subscription fee. How did they plan on staying in business as a 'free' service?

It was always the intent. YOU are the product.
I agree with much of what you’re saying, but the issue is there are no fees to use them, just metadata that if you know what you’re doing can be avoided giving. This isn’t the same as breaking up Ma Bell who both had a full monopoly, but was also charging outrageous costs with no competition. Google users along with the social media giant users get targeted advertising, that’s it. They even label the ads as such, you know what it is you’re looking at.

How is that a utility to be broken up and regulated within the boundaries of the Constitution and US Code?

I know the product is the individual, that’s why I don’t use them.
 
I agree with much of what you’re saying, but the issue is there are no fees to use them, just metadata that if you know what you’re doing can be avoided giving. This isn’t the same as breaking up Ma Bell who both had a full monopoly, but was also charging outrageous costs with no competition. Google users along with the social media giant users get targeted advertising, that’s it. They even label the ads as such, you know what it is you’re looking at.

How is that a utility to be broken up and regulated within the boundaries of the Constitution and US Code?

I know the product is the individual, that’s why I don’t use them.

It's actually a lot more involved than you think.
Google has a near monopoly on web advertising these days and shares a duopoly on phone service and has a near monopoly on web search and the biggest part of the web interface market.

They actively use this to stifle competition, raise prices for businesses and strip away the ability of consumers to have choices that respect their privacy.

Don't let the whole "free" business fool you, they along with Facebook are among the biggest threats to human freedom on the planet.
 
I agree with much of what you’re saying, but the issue is there are no fees to use them, just metadata that if you know what you’re doing can be avoided giving. This isn’t the same as breaking up Ma Bell who both had a full monopoly, but was also charging outrageous costs with no competition. Google users along with the social media giant users get targeted advertising, that’s it. They even label the ads as such, you know what it is you’re looking at.

How is that a utility to be broken up and regulated within the boundaries of the Constitution and US Code?

I know the product is the individual, that’s why I don’t use them.

I get your point.

I guess this would all hinge on how a 'fee' could be argued and determined.

It could be argued that since there is no actual subscription fee, yet the gathering and usage via the platform's usage was designed to generate revenue, the trading of the metadata for the platform could be seen as a passthrough fee.

The irony of this would be the 'social' aspect of social media would be what fucks them.
 
I think it's interesting how Silicon Valley is developing all these surveillance/control tools, and skews so very far left, and is so very anti-gun. Makes me wonder what's really being cooked up and what the endgame is.

And it makes me wonder if we're already past the point of no return for overthrowing our digital overlords; too dependent on tech and too unwilling to give it up. The cancer's taken root.
 
It's actually a lot more involved than you think.
Google has a near monopoly on web advertising these days and shares a duopoly on phone service and has a near monopoly on web search and the biggest part of the web interface market.

They actively use this to stifle competition, raise prices for businesses and strip away the ability of consumers to have choices that respect their privacy.

Don't let the whole "free" business fool you, they along with Facebook are among the biggest threats to human freedom on the planet.
But where does the USG gain the authority to regulate and break them up? I’m not saying they’re not crooked as fuck, I’m asking where the government gains the authority.

We can’t have it both ways, and this directly relates to everyone trouncing on seatbelt laws. Where does the government’s authority to regulate begin and end? Are we conservatives or do we just pick and choose where we prefer our intrusions? Fuck that, it’s freedom of the people and enterprises, or it’s servitude. Which one do we want to choose?
 
But where does the USG gain the authority to regulate and break them up? I’m not saying they’re not crooked as fuck, I’m asking where the government gains the authority.

From the same authority the Government used to let Google break the law all they want and then get rich enough to work things out.

YouTube spent years being a great place where everything copyrighted got uploaded for free and nobody got paid. Then eventually they worked out a deal with the rights holders basically strong arming them into submission with it's our way or we just let everything go on.

Contrast that with the treatment of Kim dot com and megaupload which was similar but actually a lot less copyright infringment than youtube......

Google gets hands off, kid gloves, get rich, do as you want
Other guy gets men with machine guns charging his bedroom....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yasherka
Do you really think that not using google prevents google from collecting data? Any idea how many sites use their source code? Most of them. Conspiracy theories aside, I believe google is a CIa/NSa front. I mean hell the parent comaonynisnABc corp..
I didn't intend for it to sound like that, my bad.
Any way you look at it we are WAY WAY behind at the game.
I did jailbreak my phone.and lock down the stuff I could see,I'm sure it's still bleeding data oit