Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

10000maniacs wrote: »

Regulation of Google is like regulation of paper pulp manufacturers because of what is written on the paper.
Google is not a newspaper outlet. It just facilitates advertisers.
The fact that they are big is probably annoying to the media lobbyists and therefore it has become the scapegoat for the problems with their media industries.
"Oh crap, the paywalls don't seem to be working. Who do we blame?"
Its the same argument with the ISPs and music downloads.
These companies are just facilitator platforms for your products.
If your product is crap or outdated, it's not the facilitators fault.
If nobody wants to read your journalism because somebody prefers free content, WRITE BETTER CONTENT.

No. They don't simply 'facilite' adverisers. They prime the entire system to ensure more adverts are seen. More videos are viewed, more articles promoted. That seems innocent enough as most people assume 'well I like cars, sure I don't mind more <car manufacturer of choice ads>'.. except it's not that simple.

It creates what I think of as 'bubbles of controversy'. You will be bombarded with videos that will do nothing but affirm whatever political viewpoint you follow. I don't just mean simply you like one policy of the left/right therefore you will see more. You will also be shown the most gaudy, ridiculous and controversial videos from the opposing side. Because when they are recommended, people will click. So there is s a double bind here, your own stereotypes are re-enforced and your negative stereotypes of the other side are re-enforced (mildly right leaning folks starting to think the entire left are super woke SJWs and mildly left thinking the right are all Nazi facists).

Add to the fact that this very system generates a ton of user data that allows advertisers and political campaigners to further precisely target adverts to very specific user groups and it's like a multiplier on the entire system.

10000maniacs wrote: »

A bit like what RTE does when it advertises Newspapers after the news, Or when they advertise board games during Christmas children's programmes.
Targeted audiences.
Google's problem is that they are too good at it, and other envious less successful enterprises are drooling for some of the pie.

Broadcast Television advertising doesn't work as an analogy. It's not even close and it's naive to think so. It's a complete over simplification of the entire industry.


For a start, It's far tighter regulated and there are several different agencies involved in the process. RTE can't customise the content in order to keep people hooked. They don't have the same level of data and metrics on their viewers. It's also can't combine data from different platforms and products.

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't get it, if the worst thing google do is try to manipulate us to consume more, that hardly makes them the Nazis of the corporate world, it's not like they rely on exploitative labour in the third world like almost every manufacturing company.

They could manipulate us in any way they like. They can silence people they don't like.

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't get it, if the worst thing google do is try to manipulate us to consume more, that hardly makes them the Nazis of the corporate world, it's not like they rely on exploitative labour in the third world like almost every manufacturing company.

Are we not responsible for ourselves also? Like I can withstand a fair barrage of nonsense advertising at this stage, I feel so desensitized, I would wonder if it makes a difference anymore. Furthermore I have the choice to turn it off whenever I want. I certainly don't like the constant marketing but it is the price of a free service.

It's not just adverts tho. It's the persuasive design, the recommendation algorithms and the depth of data collection used to further the agenda (of choosing what you watch in order to sell more ads). This means that more controversial content is pushed upon is. In my opinion these platforms have majorly contributed to the polarisation of our society. If it were as simple as just having to hit skip more on YouTube, then it would be fine (to use the TV ad analogy, go make a brew in the break).

But the very content is controlled (what tweets are shown, what videos are recommended, what FB shows in your feed etc). This is really changing our society and us going largely unnoticied.

The debate now seems to be around if one company owns the entire platform then they can cut people on a whim. This is also true and dangerous, but they have already been controlling what you see for a long time.

km991148 wrote: »

It's not just adverts tho. It's the persuasive design, the recommendation algorithms and the depth of data collection used to further the agenda (of choosing what you watch in order to sell more ads). This means that more controversial content is pushed upon is. In my opinion these platforms have majorly contributed to the polarisation of our society. If it were as simple as just having to hit skip more on YouTube, then it would be fine (to use the TV ad analogy, go make a brew in the break).

But the very content is controlled (what tweets are shown, what videos are recommended, what FB shows in your feed etc). This is really changing our society and us going largely unnoticied.

The debate now seems to be around if one company owns the entire platform then they can cut people on a whim. This is also true and dangerous, but they have already been controlling what you see for a long time.

I did a quick look at my history from yesterday evening on youtube:

While some of this is mildly embarrassing but A-political, there is nothing that I am watching that I didn't actively want to watch at the time, I could have skipped the Bianca Westwood showreel, that was defintiely algo inspired! It was a slow day.

I have been watching a lot of the old rte show "hands" recently, I think its a fantastic resource.

Watched Biden To Impose Travel Ban For Non-U.S. Citizens Traveling From South Africa Amid Covid Concerns
MSNBC
22:37 • Details
2:24
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched Discover Maine Public Lands
Maine DACF
22:17 • Details
20:48
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched "Boom" River Driver's - Boom House Millinocket Maine
NEOCMaine
22:11 • Details
6:00
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched Bianca Westwood Showreel 2018
MrTrebsy
22:05 • Details
6:12
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched "I'm going home!" - Bianca Westwood gets caught in a storm
Sky Sports Retro
22:04 • Details
0:42
Logo for YouTube
YouTube
Watched Elena Spills Her Secret To Mark | Peep Show
Peep Show
22:01 • Details

completedit wrote: »

We should always strive for cohesion and absolutely you can argue that technology platforms are exasperating the divide, but look at Nazi Germany 80 years ago when communication technology was in its infancy. Polarisation will always be with us; it just manifests itself through various channels.

It's not really an argument tho is it? Bad things always happen so why even ask the question?

It must be awful to be so gullible all the time that you believe everything you read online.

km991148 wrote: »

Indeed. but it's happening - look at any random other thread on Current Affairs - same old arguments back and forth..

Should stupidity be regulated? Maybe have a regulation that if a person is a gullible fool, ban them from the internet?

km991148 wrote: »

I'd be for that..!

I get that you are saying, but the truth of the matter is, we are in the situation where all sorts if bs is gotten away with. There is little journalistic integrity, people believe all sorts of crap and there does seem to be a bit of an erosion in our society as a result.

I would guess 80/90 percent of people don't have the slightest clue how these companies work. A lot would think Google is a search engine and Twitter a communication tool.

Additionally: a lot if regulation is for stupidity.. why do we need to have laws that mandate seatbelt usage? Or building regs or all sorts of things. A lot if the time I would absolutely support a more Darwinism based model.. but it doesn't really help.

I think the horse has bolted. We can’t protect everyone from themselves. The worrying thing, is that they may harm others.

10000maniacs wrote: »

I don't feel manipulated by any of it, because I don't fall for any of it.
Governments regulating the likes of Google are arguably guilty of the same things they are regulating against. Government regulation like this is more totalitarian than what these companies are doing. All Google has ever done is offered choice to the highest bidders. The mainstream media need to do the same thing and get themselves out there. Modernise.

The part in bold is very wrong. Everyone is susceptible to manipulation - everyone. Everyone gets stressed, tired, sick or can just be caught unaware. It doesn't mean you're dumb or not tuned in.


And to your second point, we vote the government in - we have no say in Google's activities.

astrofool wrote: »

I do think it's funny that it's suddenly all the right wing and conservative groups wanting social networks to be regulated.

I think that the English Socialist Workers Party might disagree with you on that. They got regulated/censored/blocked a few days ago by Facebook.

Regards...jmcc

Deleted User wrote: »

I used to think Google was a force for good in the world, democratizing knowledge for a bright new world. The motto Don't be evil was so simple but effective.

Along the way they seem to have been infiltrated by a lot of people with agendas that are slowly rotting the company and turning it into a nasty bully.

Google went public. Things changed after that. It also paid about half a billion Dollars in a fine for illegally advertising drugs in the US. It has also been fined by the EU over various practices. It is currently the subject of antitrust action in the US. But it pales in comparison to the effectiveness of Facebook and other Social Media companies. Every Social Media venture that Google attempted crashed and burned.

Regards...jmcc

timeToLive wrote: »

The part in bold is very wrong. Everyone is susceptible to manipulation - everyone. Everyone gets stressed, tired, sick or can just be caught unaware. It doesn't mean you're dumb or not tuned in.


And to your second point, we vote the government in - we have no say in Google's activities.

But we do. We don’t have to use their services if we do not want to. Their services are opt in.

timeToLive wrote: »

They're not opt in:
If you browse a website that shows google ads

If you want to publish an app to reach a large audience
If you want to manage your companies google map interactions


Further reading: https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/quitting-google and https://www.businessinsider.com/google-chrome-drive-youtube-gmail-out-of-life-2018-11?r=US&IR=T

All ‘ifs’ and no ‘musts’. Says it all. It is not compulsory to use their services.

Btw, I don’t see any ads on any website.

jmcc wrote: »

Take a look at the source code for the page. (CTRL + U). Google is so much more than just ads.

Regards...jmcc

I said it was optional. I don’t have to look at any particular website if I don’t want to, and I still don’t see any ads....that has not changed.

jmcc wrote: »

This page. Then use the CTRL+F keys to find mentions of Google in the source code. Many webpages send requests to Google servers for analytics, fonts and other things. You may not see these requests but they happen.

Regards...jmcc

You didn’t read what I said.

jmcc wrote: »

And you don't understand that you are using Google's services whether you like it or not. You can, of course, choose to block all these requests to Google's servers.

Regards...jmcc

Eh, how did you come to that conclusion? All I said was that it was optional.

jmcc wrote: »

Perhaps it is because I don't rely on "technology" journalists for information about HTML, websites and domain names. The links to Google's servers are there in the HTML code (the markup code used for webpages). You may think the use of Google's services is limited to ads. It is not. Google is far more pervasive than you realise. You may not realise this but when you use "free" websites, you are the product.

Regards...jmcc

Another conclusion jumped to. Maybe I need to explain a bit clearer. So apologies for that. How did you leap into the conclusion that I don’t understand that I’m using google services?

jmcc wrote: »

Your profile. People who don't understand the pervasiveness of online monitoring by Google, and others,focus on ads. They think that by blocking ads with an adblocker it stops them being tracked. Perhaps you are well-versed in all this stuff.

Regards...jmcc

I said I don’t see ads in direct reply to someone else. That is a fact. I don’t see any ads. You jumped to conclusions based on that and the fact that I said it is optional to use google services. There is one easy to avoid most...don’t go online or interact with anything that is connected to the internet.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

All ‘ifs’ and no ‘musts’. Says it all. It is not compulsory to use their services.

Btw, I don’t see any ads on any website.

My sentences were:
They're not opt in:
If you browse a website that shows google ads

If you want to publish an app to reach a large audience
If you want to manage your companies google map interactions


Those are real scenarios for company owners, app developers and normal people browsing the internet

Sonics2k wrote: »

Lmao "the new left". Just another hypocritical talking point.

For decades the right and conservatives have pushed for a free market and to allow corporations to do as they wish and get massive tax write offs.

It's the left pushing to get corporations to pay more tax, to improve workers rights, get companies like Amazon to recognize trade unions, improve social benefits and care.

Suddenly the right have a problem with corporate power because "muh freedom of speech".

Get a damn clue what freedom of speech is. Trump still has the right to express his views and lies, and the government isn't suppressing it.

Edit. I'm well up for regulation of corporations and other massive entities. I just love the hypocrisy and stupid talking point you lot come up with.

It's gas isn't it.

Decades of free market baloney and not even a global financial collapse caused by it was enough to change the tune.

But some cunts get fucked off of Twitter and all of a sudden, it's time to talk about regulations.

:pac:

thebaz wrote: »

and maybe start paying Taxes , like U2 , they like preaching to the masses, but think theyr above paying taxes (thats just for the masses

This is where the media gets it so wrong. Big Tech and Big Pharma contribute well over 50% of the total corporation tax payable in Ireland. The reality is Ireland doesn’t add the value which represents the profits which are taxed here. However, we are quite happy to tax those profits and have the funds available for government spending.

Even with respect to Apple, any additional tax represented by the claim of the Commission can be allocated either to the regions in which they consumers bought the products (EU non-Ireland) or to the territory where the products are designed and the intellectual property created (the US, principally). Ireland is an important cog in the global Apple organisation but Irish activities do not generate these profits.

Shortly after the Capitol Hill riots on January 6 Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook chief operating officer, said “I think these events were largely organized on platforms that don't have our abilities to stop hate and don't have our standards and don't have our transparency”

It turns out Forbes reviewed data from the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University, which has collated a list of more than 200 charging documents filed in relation to the siege.
In total, the charging documents refer to 223 individuals in the Capitol Hill riot investigation.

Of those documents, 73 reference Facebook. That’s far more references than other social networks. YouTube was the second most-referenced on 24. Instagram, a Facebook-owned company, was next on 20.

Parler, the app that pledged protection for free speech rights and garnered a large far-right userbase, was mentioned in just eight.

Whilst the data doesn’t show definitively what app was the most popular amongst rioters, it does strongly indicate Facebook was rioters’ the preferred platform.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/?sh=6b838e0410b3

Time to pull the plug on Facebook servers?
That won't happen, nor should it.
But Forbes gives us an insight into Big Tech's mind.

Kivaro wrote: »

Looks like Facebook unfriended Australia this morning.
Imagine blocking news on their widely used platform in the middle of a pandemic, because this is just what they did, and the Australians are not happy. These giant tech companies have become too powerful and need to be regulated. What or who are they going to cancel next?

As happy as I am for big tech to be raked across the coals, this is entirely on Australia.

Australia wanted a state mandated handout for their local new media and Facebook wasn't willing to pay it. Maybe the Australian government should have been more worried about the pandemic than getting their friends paid.