Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Facebook

[DannyTS]

Behind a Secret Deal Between Google and Facebook (Published 2021)

Facebook was going to compete with Google for some advertising sales but backed away from the plan after the companies cut a preferential deal, according to court documents.

www.nytimes.com

 

[turkel]

Sorry but their evil and need to be broken up. They wield far too much power with zero oversight.

 

[Tia]

Sorry but their evil and need to be broken up. They wield far too much power with zero oversight.

Agreed!

 

[Patri]

We need responsible press to report these kinds of things. The adrenaline of reporters should go up when they get leads on stories like this.

 

[SmithOp]

Just how secret could it be if the NY Times reported it?

They don’t own the internet, don’t like it, don’t use their service.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DannyTS]

Just how secret could it be if the NY Times reported it?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

It was reported by the NYT but two years later. At the time the details were not shared with the media or present in any financial disclosure (they are both public companies). From all appearances, the two companies formed a secret cartel to use their dominant position to lower the profitability of the other players and line up their pockets.

 

[DannyTS]

Google says it will remove search function in Australia if media code becomes law

Australia announced the legislation last month after an investigation found Google and Facebook held too much market power in the media industry.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Gypsy65]

Sorry but their evil and need to be broken up. They wield far too much power with zero oversight.

Anyone ever watch The Men Who Made America?

Companies back then that began to have a Monopoly were forced to break up

Why isn’t that the case with Google. Amazon. And Facebook?

You have two people. Amazon a d FB that have a lot of power and control

Sure. I use their services but would also use a competitors

 

[DannyTS]

Sorry but their evil and need to be broken up. They wield far too much power with zero oversight.

Not only it is very unlikely you will see it in the US or Canada, Australia is under pressure to drop the legislation that would hurt Google.

Google says it will block search engine in Australia if forced to pay for news

'We don't respond to threats' — responds Australian prime minister

financialpost.com

 

[turkel]

I hardly use FB, but I would love to not use Apple, Google, and Amazon. Hard to do. DH has a google phone, I have Apple and with the pandemic Amazon has grown exponentially while local stores close. My goal this year is to drop my Amazon prime and to shop elsewhere.

We won’t see any oversight or breaking up of the big tech giants now or in the foreseeable future and we all know why.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

This is much bigger than big tech. Most industries in America are oligopolies run by large corporations. What bothers me is that large oligopolies require consumers to give up their rights to U.S. legal system remedies and force them into Arbitration clauses to use their service which have been shown to favor the large company.

The consumer has no choice when the entire industry oligopoly copies one another and requires Arbitration. You cannot get healthcare, banking, phone service without Arbitration clauses.

However as @SmithOp wisely points out. They don't own the Internet so other options exist. I use other options than Facebook and Google.

 

[Tia]

However as @SmithOp wisely points out. They don't own the Internet so other options exist. I use other options than Facebook and Google.

I never used it just heard about it, but look at what they did to Parler.... squashed it in a coordinated way. So there goes one option.

The last part of the linked article -

''While both companies said that the deal is not an antitrust matter, they included a clause in the agreement that requires the parties to “cooperate and assist” each other if they are investigated for competition concerns over the partnership.

“The word ‘antitrust’ is mentioned no less than 20 times" throughout the agreement, the draft complaint said.''

 

[SmithOp]

I never used it just heard about it, but look at what they did to Parler.... squashed it in a coordinated way. So there goes one option.

The last part of the linked article -

''While both companies said that the deal is not an antitrust matter, they included a clause in the agreement that requires the parties to “cooperate and assist” each other if they are investigated for competition concerns over the partnership.

“The word ‘antitrust’ is mentioned no less than 20 times" throughout the agreement, the draft complaint said.''

Parler is a completely separate issue, nothing to do with advertising revenue. It was taken off the apple and google play store, then amazon stopped hosting the web services.

Parler found an alternative, its back up with a static page hosted on Epik now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DannyTS]

Parler is a completely separate issue, nothing to do with advertising revenue. It was taken off the apple and google play store, then amazon stopped hosting the web services.

Parler found an alternative, its back up and hosted in Russia now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

How do you know it is back up?

By the way, they are all connected. As it is becoming obvious, these companies have the ability not to just starve the competition but to cancel it altogether. You know how the poem goes:
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Parler brought this on themselves by violating the terms of service after repeated warnings. This is no different than a store saying, "We reserved the right to refuse service to anyone" after someone walks into a store and threatens others.

Why should any company be forced to degrade their brand by associating with a platform that allows violence and hate? Parler was on these platforms for only one reason: to attract new customers from major social media platforms. Their strategy to put all their eggs in one basket was stupid. Blame their CEO and Board for ignoring the warnings and not having a plan B. They knew what they were doing and got what they deserved. Alternatives exist, however they made stupid business decisions which damaged their brand. Blame Parler management.

 

[Brett]

How do you know it is back up?

By the way, they are all connected. As it is becoming obvious, these companies have the ability not to just starve the competition but to cancel it altogether. You know how the poem goes:
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

First they came for the Muslims
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Muslim

Then they came for the Mexicans
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Mexican

 

[DannyTS]

Parler brought this on themselves by violating the terms of service after repeated warnings. This is no different than a store saying, "We reserved the right to refuse service to anyone" after someone walks into a store and threatens others.

Why should any company be forced to degrade their brand by associating with a platform that allows violence and hate? Parler was on these platforms for only one reason: to attract new customers from major social media platforms. Their strategy to put all their eggs in one basket was stupid. Blame their CEO and Board for ignoring the warnings and not having a plan B. They knew what they were doing and got what they deserved.

That is a matter of interpretation. Do you know how much hate is spewed daily on Facebook and Twitter? I can give you 50 examples in any given week. But Twitter and Fb are part of the club.

 

[Brett]

Parler brought this on themselves by violating the terms of service after repeated warnings. This is no different than a store saying, "We reserved the right to refuse service to anyone" after someone walks into a store and threatens others.

Why should any company be forced to degrade their brand by associating with a platform that allows violence and hate? Parler was on these platforms for only one reason: to attract new customers from major social media platforms. Their strategy to put all their eggs in one basket was stupid. Blame their CEO and Board for ignoring the warnings and not having a plan B. They knew what they were doing and got what they deserved.

yes, they promoted violence and hate for social media likes and followers and "ratings"

 

[CalGalTraveler]

That is a matter of interpretation. Do you know how much hate is spewed daily on Facebook and Twitter? I can give you 50 examples in any given week. But Twitter and Fb are part of the club.

Yes they are all guilty. That's why I don't waste personal time on any of these platforms.

 

[bbodb1]

We need responsible press to report these kinds of things.

What are things we no longer have, but wish we did?

 

[bbodb1]

Parler brought this on themselves by violating the terms of service after repeated warnings.

No, just no.
Parler is viewed as the opposition - not just competitively, but politically.
Anyone not toting the party line (i.e. walking and talking in lock step with the media and their preferred spin on things) will be squashed - anti trust concerns be damned.
The point here is that terms of service are not applied equally throughout the worlds of Google, Facebook, and the like.

Why should any company be forced to degrade their brand by associating with a platform that allows violence and hate?

Which is not what Parler was or is.
But more to the point, when you hold the power and want to rid yourself of competition, it becomes easy to do.
Or buy them.
Are you really comfortable when any company holds that much power? Regardless of their ideology?

 

[Brett]

No, just no.
Parler is viewed as the opposition - not just competitively, but politically.
Anyone not toting the party line (i.e. walking and talking in lock step with the media and their preferred spin on things) will be squashed - anti trust concerns be damned.
The point here is that terms of service are not applied equally throughout the worlds of Google, Facebook, and the like.



Which is not what Parler was or is.
But more to the point, when you hold the power and want to rid yourself of competition, it becomes easy to do.
Or buy them.
Are you really comfortable when any company holds that much power? Regardless of their ideology?

sorry ... no, absolutely no ....
Parler is not an "opposition" ... it is

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Yes, anti-trust should be looked at for big tech.

But why are law-abiding citizens (conservative or liberal) willing to associate their "brand" with Parler's tactics of allowing hate groups to plan violence in order to garner advertising revenue and clicks? The same could be said of Facebook and Twitter. There is not one side to this problem.

 

[DannyTS]

sorry ... no, absolutely no ....
Parler is not an "opposition" ... it is

View attachment 31387

I would rather see your comments rather what others say. We can all DuckDuckGo that that. You snipped from a Wikipedia page and we do no know who wrote that, who edited it, who approved it and so on.

Regardless, to paraphrase your comment :

First they came for Brett
And I did not speak out
Because I was not Brett


Then they came for the Mexicans
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Mexican

 

[Brett]

I would rather see your comments rather what others say. We can all DuckDuckGo that that. You snipped from a Wikipedia page and we do no know who wrote that, who edited it, who approved it and so on.

Regardless, to paraphrase your comment :

First they came for Brett
And I did not speak out
Because I was not Brett


Then they came for the Mexicans
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Mexican

yeah ... it's about "Parler"