Google CEO Criticises Antitrust Regulation (cityam.com) 30
Google chief Sundar Pichai has warned that "regulation can get it wrong" as his firm is increasingly targeted by antitrust moves. From a report: Last week, the European Commission set out new regulation to curb the power of big tech. The Digital Services Act hopes to increase transparency and competition for tech firms. The legislation will force firms, such as Google, to publish the algorithms used for rankings, as well as to police their own content. Big firms could be fined between six per cent and 10 per cent of global annual turnover if they fail to comply. In the interview with the FT, Pichai gave a guarded welcome to the regulation. He said: "I think it's an important regulation to think through and get right." However, he warns that "Governments need to think through these important principles. Sometimes we can design very open ecosystems, they can have security implications." He added that the failure of GDPR to break down the monopoly of big tech "shows that for a lot of these things, the answers are nuanced, and regulation can get it wrong."
GDPR (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In your haste to FP, I fear you have been unclear. Rather than guessing what you mean (or even worse, rather than running off on a tangent), may I ask you to clarify how you relate the monopoly aspect to this story? And I acknowledge that the summary as it appears here is not helping much.
(Still, it's a much better FP than many I've seen.)
He Didn't (Score:3)
In your haste to FP, I fear you have been unclear. Rather than guessing what you mean (or even worse, rather than running off on a tangent), may I ask you to clarify how you relate the monopoly aspect to this story?
Pichai said it.
He added that the failure of GDPR to break down the monopoly of big tech "shows that for a lot of these things, the answers are nuanced, and regulation can get it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude wtf, you read the summary? You MUST be new here.
Not just US companies. EVERYONE. (Score:4, Informative)
You may not see that in the US, but it jad quite an impact offline in everyday life for us. A very nice impact.
You know those wet dreams we all had about data privacy, back in the days, that we were first laughed at everywhere but on Slashdot. And that was half the reason we created the Pirate Party?
That has become a daily reality. That even elderly people obey and care and are aware of. Only a certain young type of plastic people still doesn't care.
It's just that certain US companies were the worst at those crimes that this law was the antithesis for. That's purely their own evilness culture. They got nobody else to blame. But, being literal actual "functioning psychopaths", they of course will. And some Americans will, of course, believe them and run with it as if it was some kind of American pride to be an asshole. But nobody here will fall for it. And most Americans won't either.
Re:GDPR (Score:4, Informative)
GDPR is about giving people back control over their data. It applies globally. US or EU doesn't make much of a difference. And breaking up monopolies is not the primary goal. What it however does is soften monopolies a little, as it requires companies to give the user access to their data and allow exporting or deleting it, which in turn makes it much easier to switch services. Prior to the GDPR data export functions were rarely seen. Even in the noble world of Free Software such functions were rare, e.g. GNU's Savannah was missing one for years and years. Now with the GDPR in place everybody is required to have one.
The enforcement of the GDPR is lagging a bit behind, as for example there are currently a ton of consent forms for data collection that are clear violations of the GDPR. But overall I'd say the GDPR is a huge success. It's easily one of the most important and impactful bits of Internet regulation we have seen in decades and once they start enforcing it a bit more it's only going to get better.
That's not to say that the EU hasn't had it's fair share of nonsense regulation over the years, the Cookie Law that preceded the GDPR was a trainwreak. Did nothing to protect your data, but ensured an annoying popup on every webpage. But GDPR seems to do exactly what it was designed to do and is already hurting companies were it matters. The "coupling prohibition" for example is the reason why there is no Facebook Quest2 being sold in Germany right now.
You don't want regulation? (Score:1)
Then start with the fact that we are not your product.
Go find a "business" model and leave out personal information out.
Just give me what you slurped up from web accounts and I will take from there.
Good luck on getting something from Santa other that bag of coal
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're hitting hard on the problem, and I think I even agree with you, but is there any connection to a solution approach?
One possible interpretation is that you are sort of defending the google as a natural monopoly that needs to be regulated. If so, then the solution approach would seem to require honest regulation from the feds in America, and I don't see any way to get there from here.
Me? I don't see anything natural in the one-business-sector-one-company trend in America these days. Rather I se
Re: You don't want regulation? (Score:2)
They have a business model that clearly works. You donâ(TM)t like the model. But it would appear the vast majority of their users donâ(TM)t mind it. Hence the billions they make. You would rather they had a model that fits your preferences, and thatâ(TM)s ok. But that is not a point of principle. Itâ(TM)s a preference. The bigger problem is that most people donâ(TM)t care, therefore you wonâ(TM)t get what you want without the government interfering.
Fun fact: (Score:2)
The vast majority of regultion was directly written by corporations, to attack their competitors, stifle.competition, ad abuse their victims even more. They just don the veil of "government" when making it a law, so that they can late go "eebil gubberment" when it happens to be a competitor, or, imagine that, the actual will of the people, that's benefitted.
Stop acquisitions (Score:5, Interesting)
If big, successful companies would stop all the acquisitions, it would massively reduce the anti-trust problems. They buy up and kill competition, they buy up small companies with good ideas, before they can grow larger. They expand into more and more areas (Apple is going to start making cars??).
What is wrong with building a successful company and...just continuing to do what you do? Make good money, pay it out to your shareholders.
If companies are unwilling to do this, if they insist on becoming behemoths, then they deserve to be forcefully broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not going to help. If you want to build a social network on a new feature, FB can roll it out to a few billion users (through Insta and FB) before you hit a million users. (A new social network works if it attracts young people who want to avoid everything else, Snap, TikTok, but not on features.) If you invent a better search algorithm, how many years of losses will you take trying to
Capitalism. (Score:3, Funny)
You only need to play a few games of Monopoly to have it clearly illustrated how this is the end result of capitalism in every sector and facet of life it touches.
Re:Capitalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
that's a bit simplistic
how would you compare the results of capitalism to the results of the alternatives (socialism/communism/authoritarian/etc.)? for me, it has a better track record with not only individual rights, but of harnessing self-interest in a way that benefits society on the whole; sure we can focus on the areas that need improvement, but not to the point that we discard all the good qualities
not a game, but in real life, nothing of this scope will ever be perfect, but so far humans haven't found better
Re: (Score:3)
that's a bit simplistic
how would you compare the results of capitalism to the results of the alternatives (socialism/communism/authoritarian/etc.)? for me, it has a better track record with not only individual rights, but of harnessing self-interest in a way that benefits society on the whole; sure we can focus on the areas that need improvement, but not to the point that we discard all the good qualities
not a game, but in real life, nothing of this scope will ever be perfect, but so far humans haven't found better
Any pure "ism" is going to be an unmitigated disaster. If we just take capitalism, without some brakes, it ends up as something akin to feudalism. It feeds on the human trait of greed. But greed comes in all kinds of levels, and left unfettered, there are some who want it all. And eventually the most greedy start to prey on each other. A ruling class of the most greedy, who consider themselves the ubermensch
Now if we were to analyze communism, it also has an inherent problem. Attempting to distribute wea
Re: (Score:2)
Any pure "ism" is going to be an unmitigated disaster. If we just take capitalism
Did you know that the word "capitalism" was first coined by Karl Marx? To my knowledge there has never been a political philosopher who founded an ideological or economic system that they called "capitalism" and put into writing what it would look like. Unlike communism, no political theorist invented capitalism and set about to change the world through this revolutionary new idea.
In other words, capitalism is not an ideology and treating it as such is starting on a false premise.
To my knowledge, the only p
Re: (Score:3)
Any pure "ism" is going to be an unmitigated disaster. If we just take capitalism
Did you know that the word "capitalism" was first coined by Karl Marx? To my knowledge there has never been a political philosopher who founded an ideological or economic system that they called "capitalism" and put into writing what it would look like. Unlike communism, no political theorist invented capitalism and set about to change the world through this revolutionary new idea.
In other words, capitalism is not an ideology and treating it as such is starting on a false premise.
Isn't that just word-smiting? To toss a generally agreed upon system that many treat as an article of faith and claim it doesn't exist is sending the discussion on a tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion.
Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and Philosopher, certainly laid the foundations of classical Free market economic theory. And it is associated with laissez-faire which is associatted with whatever you determine is appropriate with what a hella lot of us call capitalism.
To my knowledge, the only person to come close to offering an objective definition was Ayn Rand who basically said it's the natural consequence of a political environment where the role of government is to recognize and protect individual rights by removing force from civil existence so that all interpersonal relations are consensual.
A rather utopian concept.
This is what makes free markets possible because without the element of force removed via the rule of law, there is no freedom. People steal, extort, defraud, kidnap, fight with and kill each other. Once force is removed free markets come into existence naturally as people can only interact with one another peacefully.
Which is exactly why it will never work. In that utopia, there is no greed, there is no jealousy, there is no theft. Humanity is assumed to be a homogenous grouping - except that it isn't at all. Eventually the adherents have to resort to a No True Scotsman argument.
Now, while many claim to love capitalism, at the moment, we are closer to a plutocracy.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, capitalism is not an ideology and treating it as such is starting on a false premise.
Many of it's proponents treat it a such. You can claim "false premise" as much a you like but it enough people treat it as an ideology then it is an ideology for all intents and purposes.
Once force is removed free markets come into existence naturally
This is just so ludicrously oversimplified. Like it's not even wrong, it's just detached from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm right with you but you've ignored one aspect of acquisition: Combining of products, dare I say... synergy.
A company that buys a competitor to remove competition (e.g. Facebook buying WhatsApp when it already has the FB Messenger platform) should absolutely be stopped. A company that buys a *non competitor* for the purpose of building something greater than each could achieve by themselves (e.g. Apple buying Intel's Modem business) on the other hand should be permitted and welcomed as it results in a bet
LOL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
+1
Nicely stated.
Re: LOL (Score:2)
Your honor, I object! (Score:3)
- On what grounds?
- On the grounds that it's devastating to my company!
In other news (Score:2)
John D. Rockefeller criticizes the breakup of Standard Oil Co.
brought it on themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
sounds like the child complaing to mama: "Billy keeps hitting me back!"
doesn't acknowledge their own culpability but goes all in playing the victim
Monopoly hates antimonopoly regulations. You think (Score:2)
Yeah, Right. (Score:2)
Just in:Big company CEO complains about regulation (Score:2)
Bad Idea, this will break search (Score:2)
So they want Google to publish their algorithm so less honourable companies can exploit it? Is this really even a good idea? I don't think many folks remember the early days of search when Altavista couldn't find anything but porn. Google was one of the few companies that could actually search what was asked of it.
Why bother with business education ... (Score:2)
... when apparently you can become CEO of one of the world's largest global companies, without knowing neither what "antitrust" means, or why antitrust legislation exists. And being the only person in the world who has 100% access to any information about your own company, failing to recognize that it is a monopoly - a concept you would learn about the first year in business school.
So much for "don't be evil".