Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium
Quote | Reply
Robber Baron (noun):

A person who has become rich through ruthless and unscrupulous business practices (originally with reference to prominent US businessmen in the late 19th century).

Word usage: "Both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons."

Famous robber barons included John Jacob Astor (fur) and Andrew Carnegie (steel). Both were tough, ruthless businessmen (and, especially in Carnegie's case, generous philanthropists...probably because they were trying to buy their way into heaven ;-). Depending on the source writing on them, they were also frequently labeled as "captains of industry." No doubt, business is a rough-and-tumble world and it's good that it is. It's kind of Darwinian in that way. Or it used to be.

Today, the top five companies worldwide are Google, Alphabet (Google's parent company), Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. It might be fair to say that these companies represent the new Robber Baron class, especially given how zealously most guard their turf, so to speak.

Apple and Google both are widely acknowledged, in fact, to be "enthusiastic" in seeking to prevent competitors from entering their markets. Stories have recently arisen of Google demanding that negative stories about its corporate culture and search engine ranking practices be taken down, with publishers quickly acceding to such demands. Apple's "closed platform" business model -- which, for all intents and purposes, compels users to agree to use of only its software, its parts and apps, and its iTunes inventory, is legendary.

Microsoft, for its part, has always resisted, in varying degrees, allowing non-M/S Internet browsers and various non-M/S software from effectively operating on its assorted operating systems, and had only done so in the past because of the threat of antitrust action on the part of several governments and the European Union.

Speaking of, earlier this year the EU fined Google $2.72 billion dollars for breaching antitrust rules with its online shopping service, making sure that competitors' shopping sites were listed no higher than on page 4 of search results while its own businesses were always listed on page 1 and succeeding pages, ahead of all competitors even if the latter were more popular. The search engine behemoth has also been accused of using its ad placement service to bully various websites into conforming with Google's dominant philosophy, which seems largely sympathetic to what we would call "social justice" issues. All well and good, but if the tech giant seeks to also stamp out any dissent, ruthlessly using its supposedly "free and open" search engine services, is that necessarily something to be welcomed?

Amazon (which I personally love, to be honest) is equally famous for undercutting competitors on price, even it it means sustaining a loss in one way or another until its competitors give up or move on to other uncontested markets. Most likely, such price-cutting will effectively end once competitors offering the same goods and services Amazon does eventually exit the market and the online retail giant gains at least an oligopoly in each of the goods and services it offers. I don't know if that's actually feasible, but the possibility exists. Certainly, Amazon looks game to give it the old college try.

As to Facebook, its social media dominance is truly global in reach and it's already come under heavy scrutiny for several attempts in the recent past to control what its users think, see, read and listen to. It's also seeking to become an arbiter of just what constitutes "genuine" news and what doesn't. The social media leviathan has also received criticism for censoring users' posts. And it's demonstrated a near-Godlike ability to discern a user's most obscure habits and associations as well as affinities. Is this a good thing, for one media company to have so much knowledge of individual users' offline (online goes without saying) lives?

Is it time, then, to consider regulating at least some of these companies as public utilities (especially Google)? Should the government go so far as to bust up some of them, as it did to Ma Bell in the early 1980s? Is the reach and influence of these companies an unalloyed good or is such influence on their part worrying? I admit I'm no fan of over-intrusive government regulation, but I'm also no fan of unfair business practices and monopolies and/or oligopolies. Every time I look at these five companies I become increasingly uneasy as to the amount of control they're gaining over our lives, I have to say.

Is It Time to Break Up Google? - The New York Times

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There was a good article in the wsj a few weeks ago comparing the robber barons of the 1900s to today's. There were over 20 companies listed as robber barons in the 1900s. There are 5 or 6 today. The biggest difference today is that Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are run by people wearing t-shirts and jeans and are considered socially righteous in their support of leftist ideals. So they're cool.
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [Old Hickory] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Old Hickory wrote:
There was a good article in the wsj a few weeks ago comparing the robber barons of the 1900s to today's. There were over 20 companies listed as robber barons in the 1900s. There are 5 or 6 today. The biggest difference today is that Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are run by people wearing t-shirts and jeans and are considered socially righteous in their support of leftist ideals. So they're cool.

Good point.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Its time.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [Old Hickory] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well if the conservatives would just stop clinging to their guns & bibles they'd be running these companies and be cool too.

Old Hickory wrote:
There was a good article in the wsj a few weeks ago comparing the robber barons of the 1900s to today's. There were over 20 companies listed as robber barons in the 1900s. There are 5 or 6 today. The biggest difference today is that Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are run by people wearing t-shirts and jeans and are considered socially righteous in their support of leftist ideals. So they're cool.
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are these companies getting advantages through the political process? Or have they just built better mousetraps? If its the former, go ahead, bust em up. If its the latter, leave them alone.

I think they have built better mouse traps. I don't have to use their services, but their services have added convenience to my life. Their innovation has created wealth beyond just 5 boats. I use the internet everyday to conduct commerce, communicate with friends, see whats happening in the world. These companies have improved my life. Why would I want to punish them? I willingly purchase Apple and Microsoft products, I willingly order things from Amazon. I willingly search for a whole range of items and ideas using Googles search capabilities. I even pay Google to help advertise my business (at a much lower price than I did in the yellow pages and with better results). I quit Facebook and do not regret it - nobody is forced to use it.

Leave them alone

(BTW - the Ma Bell comparison is backwards. Ma Bell used the government to protect itself. What happened to the phone companies was deregulation, Whats being suggested here is regulation.)
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [MLCRISES] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Can't it be both?

The big tech firms spend $49m last year on lobbying Washington, indeed Google alone spent $9.5m in the first half of 2017 ($15.4m in 2016). So what do they lobby on.. what, nothing? Or to protect themselves from legislation about anti-competitive practices, higher taxation, net neutrality and privacy.

Swim. Overbike. Walk.
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [GrimOopNorth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was not aware of those numbers, but I'm not surprised by it. DC is always for sale. So I amend my answer....Should we regulate them? No. Should we shut down DC to the lobbying machines? Yes
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [MLCRISES] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At least you're open about changing the goal posts.

Swim. Overbike. Walk.
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [GrimOopNorth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
GrimOopNorth wrote:
Can't it be both?

The big tech firms spend $49m last year on lobbying Washington, indeed Google alone spent $9.5m in the first half of 2017 ($15.4m in 2016). So what do they lobby on.. what, nothing? Or to protect themselves from legislation about anti-competitive practices, higher taxation, net neutrality and privacy.

K Street is always open for business in DC. ;-)

At any rate, more news on the Facebook front: Facebook sold 2016 election-related ads to “shadowy Russian company.â€

I get nervous whenever I hear of tech giants such as Facebook or Google deciding they know what's best for us or what we should be doing or hearing or listening to, and then doing everything they can to "encourage" us to do so. It kind of defies the meaning of "search engine," in my opinion. And who knew Silicon Valley billionaires -- some so young they weren't alive when there was a Soviet Union -- were worldly wise enough to be entrusted with so much potential power?

I think we might be making a mistake if we're counting on Google's or Amazon's or Facebook's impartiality or altruistic nature to prevent them from eventually pushing us all to go in the direction they want us to go. It's just human nature, after all.

I also ask myself, sometimes, what the difference between Facebook and Google and Amazon and Apple and the other tech companies and the NSA is, for example, when it comes to scooping up metadata and the like and then employing it for intelligence purposes? Assuredly, one side is mostly interested in the retail or knowledge economy worlds while the other is in the deadly serious business of ensuring national security. But will such a bright distinction always exist? I'm not sure.

No one is saying that as a result of the intelligence it collects Amazon will soon be equipping its fleet of delivery drones with the buy-one-get-one-free, free-two-day-delivery Hellfire missiles it probably has somewhere in its vast online shopping catalog (all the better to take you out if you don't also buy the other two items it suggests to you at checkout ;-), but at what point should we institute a kind of FISA court, so to speak, to oversee just what all these tech firms are doing with that data -- if we should even be doing that? They are private companies, after all, though acting on a vast public scale in many regards.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [GrimOopNorth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
GrimOopNorth wrote:
Can't it be both?


The big tech firms spend $49m last year on lobbying Washington, indeed Google alone spent $9.5m in the first half of 2017 ($15.4m in 2016). So what do they lobby on.. what, nothing? Or to protect themselves from legislation about anti-competitive practices, higher taxation, net neutrality and privacy.



Google isn't even in the top 10 in lobbying dollars. Relative to their market cap, it's a small amount compared to almost all the other non-tech companies on the top 50 list.

Amazon isn't top 20. Apple doesn't even make the top 50.

The realtor association alone spent $64 million.

http://thehill.com/...50-whos-spending-big
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FishyJoe wrote:
GrimOopNorth wrote:
Can't it be both?


The big tech firms spend $49m last year on lobbying Washington, indeed Google alone spent $9.5m in the first half of 2017 ($15.4m in 2016). So what do they lobby on.. what, nothing? Or to protect themselves from legislation about anti-competitive practices, higher taxation, net neutrality and privacy.



Google isn't even in the top 10 in lobbying dollars. Relative to their market cap, it's a small amount compared to almost all the other non-tech companies on the top 50 list.

Amazon isn't top 20. Apple doesn't even make the top 50.

The realtor association alone spent $64 million.

http://thehill.com/...50-whos-spending-big

Bang for the buck, though. Because of the market domination and influence the tech giants wield, it'd be reasonable to assume that many have a more direct pathway to communication with leaders in D.C. Ergo, less money spent on K Street lobbying firms, and more influence per dollar actually spent on such lobbying.

So I wonder just who the "Senator from Google" is... ;-)

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
FishyJoe wrote:
GrimOopNorth wrote:
Can't it be both?


The big tech firms spend $49m last year on lobbying Washington, indeed Google alone spent $9.5m in the first half of 2017 ($15.4m in 2016). So what do they lobby on.. what, nothing? Or to protect themselves from legislation about anti-competitive practices, higher taxation, net neutrality and privacy.



Google isn't even in the top 10 in lobbying dollars. Relative to their market cap, it's a small amount compared to almost all the other non-tech companies on the top 50 list.

Amazon isn't top 20. Apple doesn't even make the top 50.

The realtor association alone spent $64 million.

http://thehill.com/...50-whos-spending-big


Bang for the buck, though. Because of the market domination and influence the tech giants wield, it'd be reasonable to assume that many have a more direct pathway to communication with leaders in D.C. Ergo, less money spent on K Street lobbying firms, and more influence per dollar actually spent on such lobbying.

So I wonder just who the "Senator from Google" is... ;-)

It's not anything close to the influence of the defense, medical and oil industries have. Those companies have been working Washington since WWII. Most senators have grandchildren older than Google and Amazon.

Defense and Washington are joined at the hip. There are shadier shade than shade deals that go on there.
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Bang for the buck, though. Because of the market domination and influence the tech giants wield, it'd be reasonable to assume that many have a more direct pathway to communication with leaders in D.C. Ergo, less money spent on K Street lobbying firms, and more influence per dollar actually spent on such lobbying.

Wait, relatively less money spent lobbying PROVES that they have greater lobbying impact??? Wow, that is really neat logic!
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
Quote:

Bang for the buck, though. Because of the market domination and influence the tech giants wield, it'd be reasonable to assume that many have a more direct pathway to communication with leaders in D.C. Ergo, less money spent on K Street lobbying firms, and more influence per dollar actually spent on such lobbying.


Wait, relatively less money spent lobbying PROVES that they have greater lobbying impact??? Wow, that is really neat logic!

It all makes perfect sense. The companies that get the least amount of money from government have the most influence on government. The earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Amazon doesn't need to be in the top 20. Bezo's simply uses the Wa Post to push his agenda.

As for breaking them up? Not necessary. Give it another decade, maybe less and many of us will have forgotten about Amazon, Google, Facebook... as others come in a take their spot. Technology companies are fighting every day to stay relevant. Eventually one, or all of the big boys today will fall. Remember how big Yahoo was? How about AOL? Give it time.

FishyJoe wrote:
GrimOopNorth wrote:
Can't it be both?


The big tech firms spend $49m last year on lobbying Washington, indeed Google alone spent $9.5m in the first half of 2017 ($15.4m in 2016). So what do they lobby on.. what, nothing? Or to protect themselves from legislation about anti-competitive practices, higher taxation, net neutrality and privacy.



Google isn't even in the top 10 in lobbying dollars. Relative to their market cap, it's a small amount compared to almost all the other non-tech companies on the top 50 list.

Amazon isn't top 20. Apple doesn't even make the top 50.

The realtor association alone spent $64 million.

http://thehill.com/...50-whos-spending-big
Quote Reply
Re: The New Robber Barons of the Digital Millennium [MLCRISES] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MLCRISES wrote:
Are these companies getting advantages through the political process? Or have they just built better mousetraps? If its the former, go ahead, bust em up. If its the latter, leave them alone.

I think they have built better mouse traps. I don't have to use their services, but their services have added convenience to my life. Their innovation has created wealth beyond just 5 boats. I use the internet everyday to conduct commerce, communicate with friends, see whats happening in the world. These companies have improved my life. Why would I want to punish them? I willingly purchase Apple and Microsoft products, I willingly order things from Amazon. I willingly search for a whole range of items and ideas using Googles search capabilities. I even pay Google to help advertise my business (at a much lower price than I did in the yellow pages and with better results). I quit Facebook and do not regret it - nobody is forced to use it.

Leave them alone

(BTW - the Ma Bell comparison is backwards. Ma Bell used the government to protect itself. What happened to the phone companies was deregulation, Whats being suggested here is regulation.)

40+% of all goods sold online in the U.S. are sold through Amazon. How large does the percentage have to be before you get worried? 50%? 60%? 70%? Amazon does not merely provide a platform for third party sellers; it actively competes against them.

Facebook has a natural monopoly. eBay is another example. Even though eBay is is almost universally hated, there is no alternative. People go where other people go.

Google is so large now that it generates it's own data. It does not need to crawl the web looking for backlinks. It can use the behavior of its users.

Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems, but it has utterly failed in the mobile space and mostly failed on the Internet. They were so incompetent they could not even maintain their browser dominance.

Apple is not like the others. There is a healthy alternative, and Apple has positioned itself as a luxury brand. It does not seem interested in pursuing the low end of the market.
Quote Reply