Posted on 03/20/2018 7:28:07 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Not to get into an argument here, Facebook is not a private entity. They are a publicly held company like Sears, Kodak, CompuServe, AOL and other companies you mentioned.
Having said that, I personally don't give a damn' how Fakebook runs itself. I really don't. What irks me in all this is that stupid users don't understand that when they link their authentication from other social media services to their Fakebook account, that those accounts become unavailable when Fakebook suspends or terminates their access.
DUH!
Really? They didn't know this? They never stopped to ask themselves what happens to their other "social media services" if their Fakebook account suddenly stops working for any reason? People are really this stupid that they don't know this when they link accounts across platforms?
As for the rest of your post, I completely agree and hurt my aging neck nodding in agreement. Fakebook is showing signs of their looming demise and they'll have their own life cycle just like My Space, CompuServe and other "platforms" before them.
I personally will enjoy the FedGov climbing up all inside Mark Zuckerberg's ass in the coming weeks and months. When the FedGov decides its a public utility and starts regulating it, that'll truly be the end. :-)
One last comment: My own personal belief is that all these social media platforms have a direct hand in the polarization of America across political/economic/social class and other dividing lines. People will say things on social media they'd never say directly to someone's face. They think they have the safety and comfort of "the platform" to protect them when all they're really doing is contributing to the division in this country.
Nothing would make me happier than seeing the likes of Facebook, Twitter and others going by the wayside and watching people actually have to start interacting face to face again. We were a much more civil society back then. Things that needed to remain unsaid WERE left unsaid.
“I want this so badly.”
Really. I’d pay for that...where do I sign?
“Leting the government define and enforce those segmentations would be extremely damaging to technological progress and freedom in general. “
how so?
“Breaking up Ma Bell started one of the greatest innovation cycles that led to a great portion of what we today take for granted. “
Quite possibly the greatest innovation cycle in the history of man. It had been pent up behind Ma Bell’s wall for decades.
Once broken, the Internet emerged as did TCP/IP. Then VoIP and streaming and smart phones/cellular.
Unlimited bandwidth over DWDM.
Everything the defines our modern era emerged out of the Bell break-up.
“How can Goggle be dominant when they own less than 15% of the market?”
Which market are you referring to?
They have 80+% of the domestic search market and over 60% of the Cell Phone OS market.
It's a much worse problem with:
2. Directory/Search
3. Content
Those are always converging. Doing that will keep static definitions and protect current providers. Nobody will compete with Google. Nobody will compete with Facebook for user content. Naturally Facebook will keep their internal search features while hypocritically preventing any competitor from doing the same thing. The whole idea assumes that everything is just fine the way it is. But in fact the company that will overthrow Google will be an upstart that combines search and content.
Ma Bell offered mobile phone service in 1946. One of the coinventors of TCP/IP spent time at Bell Labs where they hired many brilliant students fresh out of college. VOIP and some streaming came from upstarts but AT&T was not in the way. On the contrary they provided the audio conpression fundamentals and theory by hiring Manfred Schroeder. Only other place he would have gotten a job is a university. In fact there was a lot of mobility between Bell Labs (and GTE Labs and the others) and universities.
Not saying that Ma Bell was good, but often the goodness of Ma Bell only became apparent once the fundamental research that they funded became applied. Certainly they suppressed the MCIs of the world, but that was mainly because they had the government on their side.
Google has less than 1% of the cell phone market. There is no market for cell phone OS's. Apple doesn't sell an OS, nor does Google.
Gaye as the ace of spades.
I have read that the old Bell Telephone monopoly delayed cell phones and the necessary research and development by 10-20 years. Land lines made them the most money and they had invested zillions in laying them out. Poor third world nations that could not bear the expense of decent landline networks graduated straight to cell phone networks which are 100x easier to set up.
I used to read about Uruguay wealth level nations where it would take you three years to get a land line put in.
“Who even has a land line today? ‘”
Me,and three of my five middle aged kids.
.
The Bell System also sought to delay fiber optics for a few decades, until the end of the expected life of their microwave systems.
Without fiber (originally triggered by SPRINT, following the Divestiture in 1984), there would be no Internet as we know it—not even remotely enough bandwidth to handle the data.
We got lucky that Cambridge Analytics was hired by the Trump campaign.
If they got hired by the Hillary campaign the libtards would have no issue.
Facebook owes people all over the world trillions of dollars of damages for stealing their personal data—hope they have the cash ready... :-)
Google sells their OS to the phone manufacturer.
In fact, Android has over 80% of the worldwide market share.
And android is Google.
https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os
The rule would not stop you from building a WISP.
Only by bundling it with a social media platform would you run amiss.
“Ma Bell offered mobile phone service in 1946. “
Via VHF radio and a 40lb battery.
A nationwide cellular network was not even conceived.
Yes, Bell labs developed a lot of great technology, then either shelved it or turned it over to whomever wanted to turn it into something.
Including the transistor. Which they did practically nothing with.
Is that why Google pays Samsung $3.5 billion? Very odd definition of "sells".
Note that "bundling" in this context means give away for free.
I don't suppose you see the irony of replying using billions of them.
“Is that why Google pays Samsung $3.5 billion?”
What’s the source of that?
But it would not surprise me since all search and mail goes to Google, and also location services.
I just looked it up: Google gives Android away for free to the manufacturers as long as they include all the apps Google wants on the phone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.