Tech CEOs being grilled in congress today

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 8, 2012
16,124
2,838
126


Agree with this video that is basically criticizing the Republicans on this for being so mentally fucking retarded. Instead of talking about antitrust laws and how these tech giants are stifling competition, they were instead whining about about potentially perceived political bias'. Unbelievable.

Just god awfully fucking unbelievable how dumb our politicians can be.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,884
6,551
136


Agree with this video that is basically criticizing the Republicans on this for being so mentally fucking retarded. Instead of talking about antitrust laws and how these tech giants are stifling competition, they were instead whining about about potentially perceived political bias'. Unbelievable.

Just god awfully fucking unbelievable how dumb our politicians can be.
Yes, I've always remembered some grandstanding but it seems to have taken over in the last 20-ish years to the point of there not being a question.
#BOTHSIDES!
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
29,097
8,187
136


Agree with this video that is basically criticizing the Republicans on this for being so mentally fucking retarded. Instead of talking about antitrust laws and how these tech giants are stifling competition, they were instead whining about about potentially perceived political bias'. Unbelievable.

Just god awfully fucking unbelievable how dumb our politicians can be.
Without all the derogatory insults, I can agree that our politicians are not technically savvy. Yet, they're more often than not legal savvy. It would seem in this case consulting tech "experts", not just their same ole corporate shills like Zuckerburg, would be a good choice.

Nobody is an expert in every discipline, and it's ok to seek guidance.
 
Last edited:

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,065
415
126
Then you suck at the Internet.
A search on google for “news“ results in fox being the number two link. Number one? Google news.
I tried it on my iPhone both in private mode and in normal browsing mode. I also tried it on my Windows 10 computer using the edge browser and I got the same exact result.

Always the victim.
Exactly the same for me:

1) Google news
2) Fox News

Followed by...

3) ABC
4) CNN
5) NPR

Oh the horror!
 
Nov 8, 2012
16,124
2,838
126
Amazon & Apple aren’t as problematic but I do think it is time to talk about apples mobile dominance and it’s browser. Maybe separate the two. Amazon is similar to Facebook they need to be held accountable for shitty/hyper aggressive business practices.
Really?

I mean Apple... okay...I'll let that pass only because their main source of revenue is mostly just centered around the iPhone...


But Amazon? You're nuts man. It's basically Walmart on Steroids. Like the vid I posted above talks about - 82% of households have a prime membership.... Thats more than people that vote heh.

Their AWS cloud services are impeccable and is rapidly gobbling up the market

Owning almost half the world’s public cloud infrastructure market, Amazon is the clear market leader. In 2018, Amazon reported revenues of $15.4 billion, a growth of 26.8% on the previous year. Carrying this dominance into 2019, Amazon reports Q1 and Q2 combined AWS revenue of $16.1 billion, a 39% growth from H1 2018.
50%! The next one down is fucking microsoft with a mere 15%



Then they also talk anti-competitiveness of Amazon whereby these vendors have to sell their products to Amazon - otherwise most consumers wont notice your product... Then Amazon goes and just creates a generic version of your product (after they see the buying trends of your product) and takes all your sales. That's dangerous shit there.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
29,097
8,187
136
Really?

I mean Apple... okay...I'll let that pass only because their main source of revenue is mostly just centered around the iPhone...


But Amazon? You're nuts man. It's basically Walmart on Steroids. Like the vid I posted above talks about - 82% of households have a prime membership.... Thats more than people that vote heh.

Their AWS cloud services are impeccable and is rapidly gobbling up the market



50%! The next one down is fucking microsoft with a mere 15%



Then they also talk anti-competitiveness of Amazon whereby these vendors have to sell their products to Amazon - otherwise most consumers wont notice your product... Then Amazon goes and just creates a generic version of your product (after they see the buying trends of your product) and takes all your sales. That's dangerous shit there.
Amazon is definitely a problem. Not necessarily in the same way as apple or Google, but in anti competition and cornering the market, plus worker treatment. I wouldn't have a problem if some measures were used to help improve competition.

At least places like Walmart and target have had to up their game to stay competitive, but who know how long that will work.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
13,769
2,722
126
Amazon is definitely a problem. Not necessarily in the same way as apple or Google, but in anti competition and cornering the market, plus worker treatment. I wouldn't have a problem if some measures were used to help improve competition.

At least places like Walmart and target have had to up their game to stay competitive, but who know how long that will work.
No doubt that Amazon has to be dealt with. Walmart became the retail bully, and now Amazon has become the online bully and in the process has decimated retail. Disclosure, I'm an Amazon Prime member.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
13,996
168
106
Exactly the same for me:

1) Google news
2) Fox News

Followed by...

3) ABC
4) CNN
5) NPR

Oh the horror!

I clicked on the news tab not the general All search tab. If someone is looking for news articles where do you think they'll be?

Also, love Zuckerborg getting owned here and caught out in lies.

 
Nov 8, 2012
16,124
2,838
126
I see no ownage

You owe me 5 minutes of time
I don't really either.

I think the vid I posted above puts it in an overall better perspective.... Being bias' with your political opinions and dictating what content you can/can't say is fine - but the problem arises when you're literally the only platform. So policing people's speech is moreso a symptom of anti-competitiveness. Address the anti-competitiveness and it's no longer an issue because no one will care.

The problem is also that these platforms keep championing and saying they DONT have a political bias or agenda - when it's very clear that they do.

But if you get kicked off YouTube because they called your videos "Hate speech", you're fucked. You are 100% thoroughly fucked. Just look at Alex Jones - haven't heard from him in what seems like years. The fact that they can play such a critical role in people's entire livelihood and income is disturbing.
 
Feb 4, 2009
25,884
6,551
136
I don't really either.

I think the vid I posted above puts it in an overall better perspective.... Being bias' with your political opinions and dictating what content you can/can't say is fine - but the problem arises when you're literally the only platform. So policing people's speech is moreso a symptom of anti-competitiveness. Address the anti-competitiveness and it's no longer an issue because no one will care.

The problem is also that these platforms keep championing and saying they DONT have a political bias or agenda - when it's very clear that they do.

But if you get kicked off YouTube because they called your videos "Hate speech", you're fucked. You are 100% thoroughly fucked. Just look at Alex Jones - haven't heard from him in what seems like years. The fact that they can play such a critical role in people's entire livelihood and income is disturbing.
Now *if* there was concrete evidence of lets fire this guy because he votes whatever...There would be something of interest but as of now we need to take a Representatives word that he saw this "evidence" and we have to assume the fired employee provided all and didn't edit any "evidence". Pretty large chasm to jump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,065
415
126
I clicked on the news tab not the general All search tab. If someone is looking for news articles where do you think they'll be?

Also, love Zuckerborg getting owned here and caught out in lies.

You said you went to Google and searched the word news. Sorry you have an inability to communicate effectively.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
27,161
6,682
136
You said you went to Google and searched the word news. Sorry you have an inability to communicate effectively.
It’s probably why he’s so mad that Fox News doesn’t show up more in his searches, he needs someone to dumb down the news for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
22,244
876
126
For me, the results for "News" were in this order:

Google News
ABC News
Fox News
CNN
NPR

Looks like Fox is the meat in the middle of a liberal news sandwich. :)
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,315
405
126
I mostly read the Ars article on this, and a few things struck me as odd...

Some of the talk about monopolies felt a bit awkward. The biggest thing that stood out to me was how there were complaints that Facebook held/holds such a large majority of the social media market. Just because Facebook is the main player isn't an actionable offense. Now, if Facebook used anti-competitive behavior to attain its monopoly status, or to help keep it, that's where the problem would be. However, I didn't see any evidence provided that Facebook used illicit means to kill off Friendster or MySpace to become the dominant social media platform, and there was no evidence that Facebook used devious tactics to kill off Google+ to remain the dominant social media platform.

Speaking of Google+, I think that's a good example for another issue that I had... copying. The hearing seemed to have this strange level of disdain over the large companies creating their own variant of things. Now, in some cases, such as the Amazon vs. Diapers.com scenario, there was merit to the discussion as Amazon used dubious and anti-competitive tactics to destroy their competition. However, if Facebook wants to create its own TikTok clone, what's the big deal? Just because a large company creates a clone doesn't mean it will be a success, and for that, we have our best example... Google+. Google+ was Google's attempt at entering the social media foray, and it failed pretty badly. My takeaway is that just because a large company attempts to create their own variation of an idea (i.e. staying relevant in the ever-changing tech world) doesn't necessarily mean it involves nefarious tactics.

Oh, and I found it really awkward how they kept talking about the Internet and suggesting that these four companies control it. The representatives do realize that anyone can just create a website about hydroxychrloroquine, right? There's always the mention of freedom of speech/expression, but these government representatives do realize that's to protect the people from government oppression of speech, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
7,547
4,506
136
The fact he was called out on his lie about not firing someone over their political views isn't ownage? Okay....
Gaetz didn't own Zuckerberg in practice. Like Jordan, he was going for the superficial "gotcha" that looks good to Trump drones, but completely falls apart with closer scrutiny.

Palmer Luckey wasn't fired for being conservative. He was not only making contributions in secret, he lied about them when asked. And the group he was contributing to was focused on trolling (Milo Y, grifter and harasser extraordinaire, was his liaison). So Facebook had a prominent exec on its hands who was not only dishonest, but dragging down the company's reputation. Gee, I wonder why it fired Luckey?

Apart from this, Gaetz and Jordan lied repeatedly during the hearing, treating debunked things as if they were fact (such as that Breitbart doctor video) and otherwise making unsubstantiated claims. You basically can't trust anything they said.
 
Nov 8, 2012
16,124
2,838
126
I mostly read the Ars article on this, and a few things struck me as odd...

Some of the talk about monopolies felt a bit awkward. The biggest thing that stood out to me was how there were complaints that Facebook held/holds such a large majority of the social media market. Just because Facebook is the main player isn't an actionable offense. Now, if Facebook used anti-competitive behavior to attain its monopoly status, or to help keep it, that's where the problem would be. However, I didn't see any evidence provided that Facebook used illicit means to kill off Friendster or MySpace to become the dominant social media platform, and there was no evidence that Facebook used devious tactics to kill off Google+ to remain the dominant social media platform.

Speaking of Google+, I think that's a good example for another issue that I had... copying. The hearing seemed to have this strange level of disdain over the large companies creating their own variant of things. Now, in some cases, such as the Amazon vs. Diapers.com scenario, there was merit to the discussion as Amazon used dubious and anti-competitive tactics to destroy their competition. However, if Facebook wants to create its own TikTok clone, what's the big deal? Just because a large company creates a clone doesn't mean it will be a success, and for that, we have our best example... Google+. Google+ was Google's attempt at entering the social media foray, and it failed pretty badly. My takeaway is that just because a large company attempts to create their own variation of an idea (i.e. staying relevant in the ever-changing tech world) doesn't necessarily mean it involves nefarious tactics.

Oh, and I found it really awkward how they kept talking about the Internet and suggesting that these four companies control it. The representatives do realize that anyone can just create a website about hydroxychrloroquine, right? There's always the mention of freedom of speech/expression, but these government representatives do realize that's to protect the people from government oppression of speech, right?
The problem with Facebook is they continued to buy-up everyone that dared compete with them - namely, Instagram and WhatsApp.

1596145867317.png

Even when people want to quit Facebook, they don’t have any meaningful alternative, as we saw in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Worried about their privacy and lacking confidence in Facebook’s good faith, users across the world started a “Delete Facebook” movement. According to the Pew Research Center, a quarter deleted their accounts from their phones, but many did so only temporarily. I heard more than one friend say, “I’m getting off Facebook altogether — thank God for Instagram,” not realizing that Instagram was a Facebook subsidiary. In the end people did not leave the company’s platforms en masse. After all, where would they go?

Facebook’s dominance is not an accident of history. The company’s strategy was to beat every competitor in plain view, and regulators and the government tacitly — and at times explicitly — approved. In one of the government’s few attempts to rein in the company, the F.T.C. in 2011 issued a consent decree that Facebook not share any private information beyond what users already agreed to. Facebook largely ignored the decree. Last month, the day after the company predicted in an earnings call that it would need to pay up to $5 billion as a penalty for its negligence — a slap on the wrist — Facebook’s shares surged 7 percent, adding $30 billion to its value, six times the size of the fine.

The F.T.C.’s biggest mistake was to allow Facebook to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp. In 2012, the newer platforms were nipping at Facebook’s heels because they had been built for the smartphone, where Facebook was still struggling to gain traction. Mark responded by buying them, and the F.T.C. approved.

Neither Instagram nor WhatsApp had any meaningful revenue, but both were incredibly popular. The Instagram acquisition guaranteed Facebook would preserve its dominance in photo networking, and WhatsApp gave it a new entry into mobile real-time messaging. Now, the founders of Instagram and WhatsApp have left the company after clashing with Mark over his management of their platforms. But their former properties remain Facebook’s, driving much of its recent growth.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,315
405
126
The problem with Facebook is they continued to buy-up everyone that dared compete with them - namely, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Oh, I don't disagree with that. I was talking strictly about the social media aspect of Facebook. Now, if we're talking about purchasing potential competitors, I do think the government needs to be more strict about that. For example, Facebook has its own Messenger app and website feature... so why did it need to buy WhatsApp?
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,708
2,168
126
I don't get it. Why has not The Free Market corrected this problem already? Maybe we need to deregulate them some more? Yes, I'm sure that is the problem.
Let people vote with their wallets.

/s
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
29,097
8,187
136
I mostly read the Ars article on this, and a few things struck me as odd...

Some of the talk about monopolies felt a bit awkward. The biggest thing that stood out to me was how there were complaints that Facebook held/holds such a large majority of the social media market. Just because Facebook is the main player isn't an actionable offense. Now, if Facebook used anti-competitive behavior to attain its monopoly status, or to help keep it, that's where the problem would be. However, I didn't see any evidence provided that Facebook used illicit means to kill off Friendster or MySpace to become the dominant social media platform, and there was no evidence that Facebook used devious tactics to kill off Google+ to remain the dominant social media platform.

Speaking of Google+, I think that's a good example for another issue that I had... copying. The hearing seemed to have this strange level of disdain over the large companies creating their own variant of things. Now, in some cases, such as the Amazon vs. Diapers.com scenario, there was merit to the discussion as Amazon used dubious and anti-competitive tactics to destroy their competition. However, if Facebook wants to create its own TikTok clone, what's the big deal? Just because a large company creates a clone doesn't mean it will be a success, and for that, we have our best example... Google+. Google+ was Google's attempt at entering the social media foray, and it failed pretty badly. My takeaway is that just because a large company attempts to create their own variation of an idea (i.e. staying relevant in the ever-changing tech world) doesn't necessarily mean it involves nefarious tactics.

Oh, and I found it really awkward how they kept talking about the Internet and suggesting that these four companies control it. The representatives do realize that anyone can just create a website about hydroxychrloroquine, right? There's always the mention of freedom of speech/expression, but these government representatives do realize that's to protect the people from government oppression of speech, right?
No, I don't think most politicians understand this one bit.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY