Tag Archives: business news

Amazon to buy MGM for $8.5 Billion: WTF?

opinions & observations

Above: Photo Collage by Lynxotic & New Press

There’s a joke somewhere in here but it’s hard to see it through the tears

Woody Allen’s onscreen counterpart, Alvy Singer, complaining about Hollywood Award Shows in “Annie Hall” remarked that a category of award for “Greatest Fascist Dictator” would not surprise him, and that Adolf Hitler would probably win.

Amazon, viewed from some neutral future date or by aliens from another planet would surely win the award for “Greatest Company to Amass Wealth & Power by Intentionally Losing Money” award. Or maybe just “World’s Biggest Ponzi Scheme”.

For now the fawning books and articles on the greatness of “Bezos’ Behmouth” continue to pile up.

An exception to the fawning fan fiction is “Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power” by David Dayen. The author also commented cogently on the current situation with Amazon and MGM. His thoughts shed much needed light on the simple and yet sadly overlooked truth about Amazon: its core mission is to monopolize not just online sales but all transactions that take place in the economy where a “cut” of those transactions can be extracted.

What’s with all these awards? They’re always giving out awards. Best Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler. — Alvy Singer

This viewpoint, it would seem, can be traced back to a rare case where Jeff Bezos let his guard down and accidentally explained a core concept of the Amazon business model.

He said, simply: “Your margin is my opportunity”.

With this seemingly innocuous and widely misinterpreted phrase he unleashed the dogs of hell on the world of commerce. The MGM deal, according to Dayen, who is also editor of The American Prospect, is yet another attempt to gut an industry with techniques designed to use predatory pricing strategies to crush all rivals.

The sub-head from his article states: “The company wants to control pricing on everything, and funnel as many transactions to itself as possible.”

Meanwhile, somehow, this statement is finally being generally understood in its real context.

Yet what is astounding is that this is not a supposition or an accusation, but rather is a stated fact, and how this company has behaved and operated for decades.

Putting 2+2 together, the common interpretation that there is an “innocent” pro-customer meaning possible, is finally being seen for the absurdity that it is.

Simple, Effective and Disgusting: Selling below cost or at a loss to harm competition

We’ve seen how that goes. In this case, since Amazon does not make any data available on the profitability of various business segments, using nearly $9 billion to enhance its “free with Prime” business creates yet another loss-leader opportunity to destroy the margins of all other streaming platforms, who, like other businesses actually have to make a profit or at least break even, unlike Amazon due to its cross-subsidization of products and services.

Amazon wants to control all economic activity in the United States and the world. It wants a cut of every transaction. — D. Dayen

Amazon as “cross-subsidized content devourer” is how Dayen described the inevitable outcome of the deal in his article.

He also succinctly argues that by using its virtually unlimited power and resources to devour an ever larger share of the market, ultimately the result will be to drive up costs for competitors (for I.P., production and star power) and achieve the goal of squeezing the already slim margins for those poor schmucks (or rich schmucks like Disney, HBO, Netflix, etc.) that don’t have an unlimited budget for intentional losses.

The playbook is so obvious and familiar that it’s almost laughable. That is, if not for the death and destruction that always follow in the next chapters of this plot schema.

They pick on an established industry where no one will have sympathy for the rich victims – did anyone feel sorry for Borders or other large book retailers? Does anyone cry over the loss of Diapers.com or Quidisi? When Birkenstock complains does anyone listen?

How can gutting the streaming industry or unassailable giants like Disney and HBO be bad? Isn’t it just capitalism at its finest? Should we start preparing the award now for “Greatest Consolidator of Content in History”?

But what about the “loss leader” system? What about the ultimate outcome of less competition and higher prices overall, an obvious harm to consumers, regardless of how stupid and convoluted the route is to get there?

By moving the market in a way that will make streaming a terrible business for any company that has to compete with this, “oughta be illegal” script, margins will, if the gambit succeeds, face a similar fate to the one that anyone who used to be in the retail book industry, or any of the other entire industries that Amazon has received kudos for destroying, knows all too well.

Dayen also makes the point that, once this thinly veiled ploy is seen for what it is, the harm, not only to Amazon’s competitors but to the general public, should be obvious and impossible to ignore.

Citing the similarities with the recently brought antitrust action by the Washington, DC attorney general, it is exactly this kind of pernicious practice, that Amazon has not only gotten away with for decades, but Bezos has been lionized for “inventing”.

That lawsuit, which deals with an Amazon clause in 3rd party marketplace terms and conditions (since altered to disguise its true intent) that 3rd party sellers must sell anywhere outside Amazon’s marketplace at the same or higher price that they have listed on Amazon, is a sign of a gradual shift toward seeing the real meaning of Amazon’s behavior.

Since there are massive, exorbitant fees added to every transaction for all 3rd party sellers, the only way for them to make any profit at all is to tack on the cost of those fees, meaning artificially higher prices.

Amazon has ways to retaliate through “dark patterns” of its own special stripe, by manipulating buyers behaviors on its web site, making sure that sellers that don’t toe the line will get, essentially, zero sales.

For Amazon this kind of bullying and blackmail is a “win-win-win”. They see and have tattooed into their DNA all pain, suffering and loss for anyone other than the company (AMZN) as a gain for them.

3rd party sellers caught in hell trying to survive while paying fees up to 43% or more without recourse to try and recoup by selling anywhere else at lower prices?

Amazon congratulates themselves. Sellers undercutting each other, in spite of those fees in an effort to behave like a “mini-Amazon” and getting into a race to the bottom death match with each other? Yippee! Great for Amazon, when they are dead, there are always new victims waiting in line to enter the cage.

How about sellers that obtain goods illegally, counterfeit, illegal imports, stolen products, remainders and aftermarket overstock? They are GREAT for Amazon because they put even more pressure on the individual, honest sellers to immolate themselves trying to survive (and eventually die via pricing suicide) while Amazon can claim to be offering lower prices!

Oh, and when they “do their best” to stop all those illegal sellers, albeit at a snails pace, they are bailed out by section 230 and can point to their “partners in crime”, the counterfeiters, the knockoffs from China, the illegal imports and the stolen and aftermarket goods and say: “We tried our best, these are just a few bad apples” laughing all the way through every board meeting.

“Your margin is my opportunity”, indeed.

Above: Photo Collage by Lynxotic

There are no mitigating factors here. There is no “good guy” or customer obsessed hero. Just evil and the dead or dying. Wake the fuck up, America.

The praise and adulation continues, even as the $400 million yacht is being prepared for its maiden voyage

It’s as if Bezos is given award after award for the “genius” of selling 1$ bills for .75 cents. Championed for using a strategy that masquerades short term margin destruction as “customer obsession”, pretending that the dumping levels of pricing won’t in the long run flip into price gouging and the destruction of competition.

Somehow the massive detriment to consumers and the society at large is overlooked amid all the parties celebrating the “genius”.

But have the chickens finally come home to roost? Is anyone seeing a pattern of systematic use of the same tactics over and over, applied to each and every sector that Amazon chooses to “disrupt”? They didn’t get the nickname “grim reaper” for nothing. The problem is that it was meant as a compliment.

It is a sea change in the antitrust orientation, a sea change that is desperately needed, and with Lina Kahn and Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, it might be just over the horizon. Could even have a chance to come about.

That change, so long overdue, could finally begin the process of dismantling the damage wrought and and still to come, if there is no interdiction.

The worm will eventually turn. When? After decades of obvious abuse and criminal behavior, completely and willfully ignored (too complicated to see).

Will there eventually be so many victims that they will outnumber the duped and the sycophants? Stay tuned.

Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power

David Dayen (Author)

This is a world where four major banks control most of our money, four airlines shuttle most of us around the country, and four major cell phone providers connect most of our communications. If you are sick you can go to one of three main pharmacies to fill your prescription, and if you end up in a hospital almost every accessory to heal you comes from one of a handful of large medical suppliers.

Over the last forty years our choices have narrowed, our opportunities have shrunk, and our lives have become governed by a handful of very large and very powerful corporations.

Today, practically everything we buy, everywhere we shop, and every service we secure comes from a heavily concentrated market.

Dayen, the editor of the American Prospect and author of the acclaimed Chain of Title, provides a riveting account of what it means to live in this new age of monopoly and how we might resist this corporate hegemony.

Through vignettes and vivid case studies Dayen shows how these monopolies have transformed us, inverted us, and truly changed our lives, at the same time providing readers with the raw material to make monopoly a consequential issue in American life and revive a long-dormant antitrust movement.


Related Articles:

Find books on Money and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Elon Musk looking to fix Dogecoin System Transaction Efficiency after Bitcoin Reversal

As has been the case throughout, Elon Musk is Pro Crypto

As can be seen in the tweet above, Elon Musk has announced that he is working with Dogecoin developers to improve system transaction efficiency. He feels, apparently that this ongoing development, an effort to improve energy efficiency, no doubt, is “promising.

This comes after both his silly kinda-sorta negative jokes from his Saturday Night Live appearance a week ago, and his subsequent announcement regarding bitcoin and issues with energy consumption (see below).

Regardless of those issues being about perception or reality, which is an ongoing hot debate within the crypto community, at least the issue of making crypto even more viable as a medium of exchange and store of value is being talked about in good faith serious tones.

This is an indicator of his highly positive attitude and beliefs regarding the future of Bitcoin, Dogecoin and cryptocurrencies in general.

PR nightmare abated and pre-empted by announcement that Tesla will no longer accept Bitcoin

In a sudden about-face Elon Musk announced that Tesla would not accept Bitcoin for its environmentally friendly electric vehicles after all. This, after the company made big news when it purchased $1.5 billion of the cryptocurrency which was revealed in an SEC filing.

In the first quarter report of 2021 the company revealed that it sold a portion of its Bitcoin and netted a $101 million profit. That number represented nearly a fourth of the reported total profits for the quarter.

An even larger contributing factor to the positive news at the time was the massive sales of regulatory credits were $518 million. In other words, profit from Bitcoin and government subsidies was basically 100% of the upside. Car sales, not so much.

Enter the massive media frenzy over the energy use “wasted” on Bitcoin mining and you have a PR disaster waiting to happen for Tesla and Musk. Naturally, clever lad that he is, it was prudent to cancel, at least temporarily the policy of allowing customers to pay with Bitcoin.

Odd thing is, there are many worse things sucking up energy than Bitcoin. And the mining will not stop or slow down because Tesla is not getting any for its cars. But the perception that there’s a “great cost to the environment” from crypto-mining is enough to make this sudden announcement mandatory from a PR standpoint.

Though not mentioned in the tweet where this policy change was announced, it is unlikely that Tesla will go forward with accepting Dogecoin, which was mentioned recently by Musk also, due to the perceived similarities in the mining process.

In the statement attached to Musk’s tweet he also states that they will potentially use a crypto currency if it can be used at an energy cost of less than 1% of Bitcoin per transaction.

This is a separate issue from the mining energy usage but it has also been a criticism that the energy expended to transact using Bitcoin is very high, compared to what is a separate question. Perception is at the root, but wanting more efficient crypto is certainly a laudable goal.

This part of the statement will no doubt lead to feverish speculation as to which cryptocurrency might meet his stated requirements.

Elon Musk’s support for cryptocurrency is, like his commitment to sustainable energy, a positive stance and, before his personal success became completely overblown, a courageous one.

Taking on the fossil fuel industry, it’s easy to forget, was no easy feat in the early days. And, similarly, the inevitable upcoming clash between crypto-adherents and governments (printers of fiat currencies) will need established eminent “super-citizens” to give crypto a chance of survival.

For that reason it is good to see that this does no represent a rejection of crypto itself on Musk’s part, but a necessary response to mounting criticism based on the perception of hypocrisy.

You can bet that, if there is a way to mine with sustainable energy sources (actually in many ways already happening) he will reverse his stance yet again.


Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Elon Musk Announces BitCoin Reversal

Perception is Reality and the Perception is Bad

In a sudden about-face Elon Musk announced that Tesla would not accept Bitcoin for its environmentally friendly electric vehicles after all. This, after the company made big news when it purchased $1.5 billion of the cryptocurrency which was revealed in an SEC filing.

In the first quarter report of 2021 the company revealed that it sold a portion of its Bitcoin and netted a $101 million profit. That number represented nearly a fourth of the reported total profits for the quarter.

An even larger contributing factor to the positive news at the time was the massive sales of regulatory credits were $518 million. In other words, profit from Bitcoin and government subsidies was basically 100% of the upside. Car sales, not so much.

Enter the massive media frenzy over the energy use “wasted” on Bitcoin mining and you have a PR disaster waiting to happen for Tesla and Musk. Naturally, clever lad that he is, it was prudent to cancel, at least temporarily the policy of allowing customers to pay with Bitcoin.

Odd thing is, there are many worse things sucking up energy than Bitcoin. And the mining will not stop or slow down because Tesla is not getting any for its cars. But the perception that there’s a “great cost to the environment” from crypto-mining is enough to make this sudden announcement mandatory from a PR standpoint.

Though not mentioned in the tweet where this policy change was announced, it is unlikely that Tesla will go forward with accepting Dogecoin, which was mentioned recently by Musk also, due to the perceived similarities in the mining process.

In the statement attached to Musk’s tweet he also states that they will potentially use a crypto currency if it can be used at an energy cost of less than 1% of Bitcoin per transaction.

This is a separate issue from the mining energy usage but it has also been a criticism that the energy expended to transact using Bitcoin is very high, compared to what is a separate question. Perception is at the root, but wanting more efficient crypto is certainly a laudable goal.

This part of the statement will no doubt lead to feverish speculation as to which cryptocurrency might meet his stated requirements.

Elon Musk’s support for cryptocurrency is, like his commitment to sustainable energy, a positive stance and, before his personal success became completely overblown, a courageous one.

Taking on the fossil fuel industry, it’s easy to forget, was no easy feat in the early days. And, similarly, the inevitable upcoming clash between crypto-adherents and governments (printers of fiat currencies) will need established eminent “super-citizens” to give crypto a chance of survival.

For that reason it is good to see that this does no represent a rejection of crypto itself on Musk’s part, but a necessary response to mounting criticism based on the perception of hypocrisy.

You can bet that, if there is a way to mine with sustainable energy sources (actually in many ways already happening) he will reverse his stance yet again.


Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

In: ‘Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age’, Amy Klobuchar Takes on World’s Greatest Challenge

Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Is the title above wrong? Depends who you ask…

In her new book, Klobuchar tries to connect the historical roots of antitrust actions to populism and her own ancestry. That’s not all, however. Although difficult, particularly for readers who are not legal scholars, there’s an important and deeper historic thread here that she is aiming to contribute to.

That job is to find a way to illuminate how the digital age, with all its challenges and complexities, can come to terms with the simple question of how to measure damage that is being done by big tech monopolies, through sheer size, power and lack of external accountability.

Moreover, there is an issue of how antitrust law and practice veered away from the remedies and goals, first established during the Gilded Age, toward a laissez-fair, anti-regulatory stance that gained steam in the Regan years.

That shift is, in many ways, to blame for the current extreme state characterized by dangerous levels of concentrated wealth and power by big tech.

This effort may seem like one that is doomed to being ignored by all but the already long-since converted. But, make no mistake, it is a topic that will grow, reverberate and become more relevant as the current administration in Washington consolidates and comes into its own.

“People have just gotten beaten down. I wanted to show the public and elected officials that you’re not the first kids on the block with this. What do you think it was like back when trusts literally controlled everyone on the Supreme Court, or literally elected members of the Senate before they were elected by the public?”

— Amy Klobuchar, in Wired interview with Steven Levey

When President Biden recently nominated Lina M. Khan to the Federal Trade Commission, in addition to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, who announced earlier this month he would join the National Economic Council, he set forth a clear path for an antitrust direction that has the potential to be more than just rhetoric and window dressing.

Khan is an unequivocal proponent of a new era of antitrust, one that is, not coincidentally, along the lines of what Klobuchar advocates. Likely sharing these ultra clear views from her long and celebrated research, Khan, along with Wu, is a key addition to Biden’s growing roster of Big Tech critics, and there is already a blueprint for actions and cases that will build to a crescendo over the next several years.

Buy at

Biden’s call for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, meanwhile, a hotly contested and possibly flawed legal shield some feel is exploited by Internet platforms, is another indicator of the tenor of the coming actions.

In a sense, with this bestselling book [on Amazon: #1 in Political Economy, #1 in Government Management, #1 in Business Law (Books)] the gargantuan task of connecting the culpability of massive, nearly infinitely powerful behemoths, each in it’s own territory, to the social and economic catastrophes that they’ve brought down on the world.

However, while politicians like Klobuchar may not have the charisma and energy to set a fire under the population, it is the very deeds themselves that will eventually conspire to ignite an uprising and put pressure on the government and the courts to take real, substantive measures. And with young, new faces and minds such as possessed by Khan and Wu, ultimately there is a bulwark of criticism against monopolist abuses building in government and among the public at large.

“I am never saying, ‘Get rid of their products.’ But let’s have more of the products that give you more choices. You can keep one product, but it’s better to have other products, because we’re not China.”

Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey

 In response to Klobuchar’s quote above Steven Levey in Wired wrote; “In other words, Facebook could keep it’s main app, but the public might benefit if Instagram and WhatsApp were not Mark Zuckerberg productions.” 

While this kind of “moderate” view may not be the earth shattering remedy that would turn the juggernauts around in a heartbeat, from Zuckerberg’s perspective it would not be ideal, to say the least.

Buy at

And, since we have seen the unfettered and viral growth of big tech, for at least a quarter century in some cases, and since there was a aura of hero worship afforded their leaders for most of that time, a break-up, such as that could ultimately turn out to be the beginning of more sweeping changes. A welcome outcome for those that have been harmed the various monopolistic structures that rule nearly all our lives, or at least it seems, at times.

Levey then asked Klobuchar why legislators so often embarrass themselves in hearings with irrelevant partisanship, clueless technical questions, and time-wasting grandstanding. Her response;

“Welcome to my life,” she says. “I get it—there’s going to be hearings that are irritating to people who know a lot. But that’s a great argument for tech to use because they don’t want this oversight.” 

Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey

In defense of using the word “antitrust in the title, while also advocating its eradication in future she responded:

 “Well, I thought antitrust was an interesting word”. “It’s not only about this body of law; it’s also about not trusting anyone.”

Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey

Perhaps it is more the course of history that led to the current and incredibly extreme situation and obscene dominance by big tech that is what should never have be trusted to arise in the first place.

Perhaps these firms will one day be seen, looking back from future generations, as a temporarily necessary, but evil mistake of history, as was the toothless interpretation of laws that led to their rise from “scrappy underdog startups” into malignant monopolies run amok.

Recent Articles:


Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Trump will Launch Social Network “In a Few Months” according to Spokesperson

No where to go, now an attempt to go solo

After a lifetime ban from Twitter and other social media outlets in the aftermath of inciting the January 6th terrorist attack on the Capitol, today, on Fox News, a Trump spokesperson announced that he is starting his own network.

 Long-time adviser and spokesperson for the Trump campaign, Jason Miller,  stated on on Fox’s “MediaBuzz” that the former guy would be “returning to social media in probably about two or three months.” 

Visit our home page for more…

In typical fashion spokesperson says it will be huge

Next he bragged that his return to social media would be via “his own platform” and that this new network would garner “tens of millions” of users and in his opinion would also “completely redefine the game.”

 “It’s going to completely redefine the game, and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what President Trump does, but it will be his own platform.”

—Jason Miller, Trump Spokesperson

This news comes at a time when the furor of constant rage tweeting from the former guy has finally died down. It remains to be seen if this announcement is credible as there are pending legal and financial challenges that could potentially stand in the way of such an undertaking. 


Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Trump is Guilty of High Crimes but 43 vote to Acquit

Opinion and observation:

The meaning of this ongoing assault on the truth

One thing that was unavoidable during this unprecedented 2nd impeachment process was the sense that the facts and evidence of a heinous series of crimes left any sane individual utterly devoid of any doubt that Trump was guilty. And yet, in the face of so many facts and so many public acts, a minority of 43 Republicans voted to acquit and stood up to say, with that vote, that they do not care about the law, the constitution or even this country.

Read more: Trump’s Best Impeachment Defense: ‘I’m a Buffoon and it was all a Joke’

What that means going forward is only clear in a few, but very important, respects. It is clear that the majority in this country – demonstrably sane Republicans like the seven that did vote to convict, and the roughly 259 million that do not support Trump’s insanity – will have to continue to fight for what they believe in – even if opinions are diverse, and fight as much as necessary for the basic understanding that we will never follow a wannabe dictator and criminal.

Again, what is clearer today than before the trial, is that the forces that propelled Trump into power and, even to this day, seek to maintain some kind of grip on the poison political tribalism he stands for, will attempt to use it to regain power again and try to use it to terrorize the rest of us.

Read more: Georgia initiates Criminal Investigation into Trump’s call

No muddy waters, no reasonable doubt, just complicit co-conspirators

The inescapable takeaway from the entire fiasco of the so-called “Trump-era” is that, without some kind of active and confrontational prevention from those that believe in democracy and democratic values, there will be a continue to be a force from the far right that will fill any void and seek to destroy this country and potentially the world.

Because, in the end, political disagreements over tax policy, immigration, and so many other admittedly important concerns, it is the pro-oil, anti-environmental, climate change-denying racist and corrupt evil that must be prevented, from this moment forward, from ever wielding power in this country again.

There is no reconciliation with a coalition that seeks to destroy the world in the name of religious fantasies and lust for a racist reckoning or misanthropic judgement day.

No Justice, no Peace

The future will, quite simply, not exist if neanderthal bigots (sorry neanderthals, you deserve better) with zero moral consciousness are permitted any say in government. This is not a political disagreement or lack of consensus. This is dangerous criminal terrorist elements that believe they have the right to decide the future of this country for all of us, against any person that holds views that would prevent Trump or any person with his destructive and worthless character.

Trump’s hyperbolic call to arms: “If you don’t fight, you won’t have a country” is, in reality, some kind of perverse projection, as it is us, those that have been terrorized by this malignant clown, that must listen and realize that he is right, not about the duped and manipulated followers he was lying to, but about us: we are the ones that almost lost our country.

And who should be the judge of the character of would be “leaders”? That is, and must be, we the people. If there are, in reality, 74 million people who are either brainwashed or simply ignorant enough to support a criminal like Trump, then the will of the majority, of the 259 million with the better sense not to support such a person, must be the arbiter of what is right.

The next chapter in the ugly and disgusting Trump saga will be private and legal efforts to stop him or anyone descending from his corrupt and bankrupt “cause” from re-entering the political arena.

This must not be seen as petty vengeance but as a sacred quest to protect, not only this country, but the entire world from the plague that we have all witnessed and endured other the last 5 years.

The losses must be recovered and the wrongs set right

The poisoning of the national discourse, the destruction of institutions, the loss of lives in the insurrection and the nearly half a million dead, in part, due to maladministration of the government response to the pandemic, all of this and so much more might not have happened if Trump had been stopped sooner.

There is no clearer course, and no outcome more important to prevent, than any return to the horrors that were perpetrated with this demented and dangerous man at the helm of our country.

And the proof today is in the bogus acquittal by 43 ,who share his guilt, proof of the absolute necessity to actively prevent any reemergence of his poisonous reign, or that of any acolyte that may attempt to rise carrying his diseased, corrupt mantel.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Politics,  Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Georgia initiates Criminal Investigation into Trump’s call containing alleged ‘attempts to influence’ Election

Announcement marks the 2nd state to launch cases against #45

The call from Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger will be called into question as Georgia prosecutors have initiated a criminal investigation against the former president. 

Read More: Trump Crusade against TikTok finally ended by Biden Administration

 The request comes as Trump is currently facing his second impeachment trial  on the charge of “incitement of insurrection” following attacks on the Capitol on January 6.  Trump could be heard, in the weeks following the election, claiming that the election was stolen from him, which included his loss in Georgia, where he fell short of approximately 12,000 (11,780) votes. 

Read more: Trump’s Best Impeachment Defense: “I’m a Buffoon and it was all a Joke”

To listen to full phone conversation Trump had with Georgia’s Secretary of State, The Washington Post obtained the entirety of the call. 

Documents, as well as the telephone call itself, are to be preserved as evidence, in order to further look into Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results in Georgia.  During the call with Raffensperger, Trump could be heard pressing him to “find” the votes, meaning the 11,780 needed for him to win the state. 

Trump took to Twitter at the time (his account has since been deleted) and spoke of Raffensperger, stating he “was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!”

To which he responded

The letter, sent to a handful of state government officials, according to the New York Times, responsible for first reporting on the story:

“This investigation includes, but is not limited to, potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”

Letter confirming Criminal Investigation As quoted in the New York Times

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Politics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Mark Zuckerberg Joins Clubhouse: Crashes the App (for a short time)

On a crazy night Zuckerberg, KimDotCom and Guy Kawasaki all join rooms at the same time

Clubhouse, the red hot “social audio” app which is growing, even by invitation only by the millions per week. Part of the appeal is the up-close and personal audio interactions that happen among people from all walks of life; including big names. Last week it was Elon Musk “interviewing” the CEO of Robinhood (see video below).

KimDotCom is a bit of a crazy one, could be perhaps called infamous rather than famous, as the founder of “MegaUpload” and the New Zealand Extradition saga. There’s a strange kind of irony to having Mark Zuckerberg show up. Obviously it shows how Clubhouse is just too hot to ignore – it will probably spur rumors that he is circling the rooms with designs on acquiring or copying the app.

We have been testing Clubhouse for a future feature article and it is truly remarkable what the atmosphere is while using the app. The intimacy of group audio, combined with a kind of democratic algorithm / interface (for the most part), makes for a social media experience that is nothing like any other platform that has caught on.

In some ways it’s like being at a huge trade show like CES and going to a keynote or a panel discussion. However, the fact that it is live 24/7 365 days a year makes for more impromptu access, more spontaneity and more… chaos (sometimes for good or…).

Clubhouse was launched, in what may be the most fantastically serendipitous timing ever, in March 2020. Tearing a page, ironically, from the Zuckerberg and Facebook playbook, it has been and continues to be an invitation only club.

Read more: Zendaya’s ‘Malcolm & Marie’ drops Tomorrow on Netflix: check the trailer now

After the session with Zuckerberg was over one of the “Stage” speakers coined the term “Digital Teepee” to describe the feeling of being in such an intimate setting with such a controversial figure like Mark Zuckerberg. Others speculated what his motivations might have been to join the club.

In a nod to the “Trade-show” aspect the first affinity group was… Venture Capitalists

In an interesting twist, however, the initial focus for invites was not on college students, as was the case with the early days of facebook, but mainly consisted of venture capitalists.

Perhaps this was indirectly related to the fact that , Alpha Exploration Co., the company behind Clubhouse was launched after a $12 million investment came from Andreessen Horowitz after they had only been in existence for approximately two months.

The invitations are being handed out more liberally now and the “club” is growing at over a million users per week at the moment. The demand is so extreme, however, that invites are even being sold on eBay in the US and even on equivalent platforms in China and elsewhere.

In a first, in what will almost surely crash the app again, Netflix will be doing a promotional room (which has never happened before) to promote Zendaya’s new film‘Malcolm & Marie’ which will be live on Netflix tomorrow.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac 

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Trump is Permanently Banned from Twitter

After close review of recent tweets

This is a breaking news story

Suffice it to say for the moment: He deserved it and it’s about time. The fact that his account was re-activated after a short pause was a strange choice by the platform. At least they made the right one in the end. Here’s the official tweet

Read more: Finally: Shopify, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram freeze Trump accounts

Read more: Trump Overseas Flight Plan Timed to Avoid Inauguration Ceremony

Read more: Trump’s Mystery Companion Revealed

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684878574366721?s=20
https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684880403066881?s=20
https://twitter.com/CrypticNotAlone/status/1347686710877057031?s=20

Below the full text from the official Twitter bog explaining, in detail the action taken and why:

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter — we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. 

In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action. Our public interest framework exists to enable the public to hear from elected officials and world leaders directly. It is built on a principle that the people have a right to hold power to account in the open. 

However, we made it clear going back years that these accounts are not above our rules entirely and cannot use Twitter to incite violence, among other things. We will continue to be transparent around our policies and their enforcement. 

The below is a comprehensive analysis of our policy enforcement approach in this case.

Overview

On January 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump tweeted:

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Shortly thereafter, the President tweeted:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks. After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service. 

Assessment

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

  • President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (12) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
  • The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. 
  • The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
  • The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election. 
  • Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. 

As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on  Big Tech,  Politics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Apple Car Confirmed: talks with Potential MFG Partners including Hyundai underway

Above: Photo Collage Apple / Lynxotic

Following leaks and rumors, a more definitive statement from Hyundai

In December 2020, a Reuters story cited sources with knowledge of the project to confirm the existence of the long rumored “Project Titan” otherwise known as the “Apple Car”. Now, based on a statement from a Hyundai spokesperson, “AppleCar” is moving forward in the form of discussions with potential manufacturing partners.

Hyundai also confirmed to CNBC that discussions with Apple has begun, but added the caveat that they “understand that Apple is in discussion with a variety of global automakers, including Hyundai Motor. As the discussion is at its early stage, nothing has been decided.”

This hesitation could stem from the possibility that the initial statement may have been interpreted as hinting that an agreement could be imminent, sending Hyundai’s stock 23% higher. The surge in the price followed a  report by the Korea Economic Daily which had implied that Apple suggested the tie-up and Hyundai Motor was reviewing  terms.

Apple doing what Apple does

Even after the Reuters report in December, many were still skeptical, and today the time frames being discussed are very conservative mentioned a 7 year time horizon, even while the Reuters report mentioned at least the possibility, however remote, that 2024 could see an actual release onto the consumer market. 

It is historically established that Apple often enters established markets for specific products and, in may cases, makes a ultra high quality, uniquely “Apple” version. EVs are now firmly established as the future of individual sustainable transport, but with Tesla having set the quality and popularity bar as high as it has, Apple will have a challenge ahead of it to produce a likely self-driving fully realized electric vehicle to match the state of the art in 2024 and beyond. 

At CES 2020 Hyundai unveiled new technologies they already have in development, such as EVs, driverless and even flying cars.

The fact that Tesla founder Elon Musk is now the richest man in the world, after removing that title from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is not a factor in the “race” to build the best software and hardware for the future of EVs, but is an added dramatic fact that serves as a backdrop to the intrigue.

And hey, wow, imaging having a variety of non-polluting, sustainable energy vehicles to choose from by the worlds top manufacturers and with Apple and Tesla battling it out at the high end to provide the best and most desirable.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on  Big Tech,  Politics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Elon Musk rips off title ‘World’s Richest Man’ from Jeff Bezos: Net worth $180 billion

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Bezos knocked from #1 slot that he has held since 2017

According to Bloomberg, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX just passed up Jeff Bezos as the world’s richest person. While this, in and of itself is a fact that many will likely fetishize, the real story here is why and how.

There could not, IMHO, be two people more diametrically opposed in terms of motivation, inspiration and method. Both obscenely rich now? Of course. In each case because of stock holdings in companies they founded? Right again.

After that it is all a study in contrasts and contradictions. For example, as recently as Christmas eve 20o8 Elon Musk was nearly bankrupt and was on the verge of losing both SpaceX and Tesla. Later as recently as 2019, Tesla was in a deep financial hole.

Was this a case of bad management? Apparently not. What it was related to was the prime difference between Bezos and Musk. Musk has always only had one mission. Was it having the world’s most dominant eCommerce company? (or any other kind). One that would destroy entire business categories and be called the “grim reaper” due to it’s destruction of markets and competitors?

No – Musk has always wanted to save the world from itself. Tesla’s stated official mission is:

Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. … Teslabelieves the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.

Tesla / Elon Musk

Perhaps the cynical would say this is just some kind of veil hiding a capitalist and monopolist hunger a la Bezos. But they’d be wrong. Musk has openly stated that he is willing to share various proprietary technical information with his competitors if it would help the world’s transition to sustainable energy succeed faster. Would Bezos give away Amazon’s secrets. Take a guess.

Read more: Is Jeff Bezos soon to be World’s First Trillionaire? No Chance in Hell. Here’s Why

Another interesting tidbit – Both SpaceX and Tesla have publicly disavowed all copyright claims to their photos, videos or other marketing assets. They also do zero paid advertising. This is brilliant and has made them money in the end, but more importantly it is additional proof that it is the success of the mission, a mission that ultimately benefits all humanity more than any singe individual, that is paramount in his thinking.

Though Musk may not realize it, he and Steve Jobs are kindred spirits

The only other highly successful tech visionary that had this kind of focus on the real success, which can by definition only ever be success for all, if Steve Jobs. With so much misinformation and focus on meaningless stats, like whose stock is worth the most paper dollars (printed at will by the Fed) at any given moment, it is often misunderstood that the mission and the sincerity and effectiveness of the mission that will always matter in the end.

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe and it Finally Makes Sense

Probably the greatest gift Bezos ever has or ever will give to humanity was via his divorce. Any other “charitable” act he will ever commit will be, first and foremost, have the goal of improving his image and stroking his massive ego.

Therein lies the difference.

Early Thursday Tesla shares (TSLA) rose by 6%, and further lifting the CEO’s stock holdings and options by $10 billion, resulting in the net worth of approximately $191 billion.  

Musk edged past the Amazon founder who is currently has the net worth of around $187 billion. 

He later added, “Well, back to work …”

Musk, who pinned the following past tweet from 2018 explained his intentions and how he will use money from his success, “You should ask why I would want money. The reason is not what you think. Very little time for recreation. Don’t have vacation homes or yachts or anything like that.”

Bill Gates is trailing as the third world’s richest person at $132 billion. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on  Big Tech,  Politics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Finally: Shopify, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram freeze Trump accounts

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

The day after it would have helped, better late than never

After more than four years of tyrannical abuse of social media and the eCommerce hawking of propaganda trinkets, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and even Shopify have put blocks on Trump accounts.

Particularly in the case of Facebook, the timing is somewhat unsatisfying. Facebook, as many can recall, has supported Trump “fake” and misleading advertising since before the 2016 election. Those ads were, according to many, a very big reason that he was elected at all. This was a huge mistake of history, one might say, and the mistake started at Facebook.

Naturally, being “arbiter of the truth” or not, is an entirely different issue, because it is the warlord-like raking-in of millions upon millions, if not billions of dollars, by blindly allowing lies, hate, racism and worse be propagated as political advertising, that has been the clear “wrong” that Facebook allowed and profited from.

So, it’s ,at least somehow, a belated comfort that, at least for the moment, ads fomenting violent overthrow of the imaginary “deep state” or sales of MAGA hats that finance said ads, are no longer running in tandem like some kind of dystopian fascist nightmare machine.

At least the media, much of the government and now a lot of big tech and social media are united in one simple thought: Trump is simply a criminal and aiding him in any way make you and your company one also. So, yes, shut it down, now.

Shopify

Shopify, the multinational e-commerce company that hosted shops that relate to Trump’s campaign products as well as Trump’s personal brand have both been taken down. Those who attempt to go to TrumpStore.com or shop.donaldjtrump.com, known for selling the official Trump MAGA merchandise will be meet with error messages as the sites were taken down Thursday morning.  

A spokesperson for the company released the following statement following the terminated stores affiliated with Trump: 

“Shopify does not tolerate actions that incite violence. Based on recent events, we have determined that the actions by President Donald J. Trump violate our Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits promotion or support of organizations, platforms or people that threaten or condone violence to further a cause,”

-Spokesperson for shopify

Twitter

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970431039934464?s=20

Twitter also added that “Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account.”

Trump has since deleted the three tweets that led to the temporary suspension of his account.  Trump’s account will remain locked for an additional 12 hours after the deletion.  It is not clear the exact timing of when the tweets were deleted and when Trump will be allowed to post again, he has yet to tweet. According to CNBC,  the lock could be removed around 3 p.m. ET.

Facebook

Trump’s official Facebook and Instagram accounts have both been locked due to policy violations. Facebook Newsroom released a statement via Twitter starting on January 6 at 8:36 p.m. ET, stating that Trump’s account would be blocked for 24 hours. On January 7th, they updated its statement to explain the extent of the block would be “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”

CEO and founder, Mark Zuckerberg also released his own statement on the matter:  

“The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden.

His decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the US and around the world. We removed these statements yesterday because we judged that their effect — and likely their intent — would be to provoke further violence.

Following the certification of the election results by Congress, the priority for the whole country must now be to ensure that the remaining 13 days and the days after inauguration pass peacefully and in accordance with established democratic norms.

Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government.

We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”

Instagram

Head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri also took to Twitter to confirm that Trump’s account for the platform had also been placed on a hold.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Politics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Facebook vs. Apple vs. Google vs. U.S. Gov: War of Giants is at Hand

Above: Photo ubisoft / Lynxotic

The battle is getting very public and will get louder and nastier

The full page newspaper ads taken out by Facebook, where they proclaim themselves the champion of small business and attack Apple directly are interesting and curious on many levels. 

It will take a series of articles to attempt to untangle the confusions and endless, often intentionally fostered, misconceptions that will most certainly arise in this battle of titans. 

At the heart of the matter is, however, the largest misconception humanly possible, the idea that these monstrously huge companies, and how they operate, are anything at all related to “normal”.

The fact that all of us have seen the role of the internet in general increase over the last 20+ years, and have therefore had to deal with, and in some cases, go through and cooperate with these behemoths, may be the status quo that has developed, particularly in the last decade, but it is without precedent on many levels. 

The size, power and influence is beyond comprehension and this clouds every issue

Before even beginning to contrast one giant against another one must first confront the very existence of entities of this magnitude. It’s fair to say that never in history has such a tiny group of companies, and by extension, individual humans, controlled so much of the economy and so much of that impacts the society and our experiences. 

This chart is not current. If it were the disparity would be far larger and even more astounding:

This information, for a human, is so out of whack that you would have to stare at this chart for days before it could even sink in. And, as it it only a chart of size, built on company market capitalization, the power and influence, which represents and ever larger disparity, is not represented. 

The dominance overall is so extreme as to be humanly incomprehensible. And by all measures the disparity between the big tech firms and “everybody else” grows literally by the second. 

If you are afraid of A.I., you’re too late, the world is already controlled by computers and software via these companies

Facebook is probably the best example to illustrate the problem of market power and dominance on a level that is so far beyond traditional methods of measurement that even government antitrust investigations are barely able to begin to access the potential violations.

“The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. “

— D.L.
Click Here to See “Automating Humanity
Also Available on Amazon.

The questions below might seem odd, or even absurd. But what is really absurd is that they are, for the most part, never asked. Since the iPhone and later Samsung / Android revolutionized information and photo sharing, it has been accepted as a simple reality that Facebook controls nearly all the “social networking” that is done with that data. Why?

What is Facebook? Most would say they are a “social media company” but that can mean anything you want it to mean. They claim they are in the business of “connecting people” yet they derive massive wealth and profit from advertising, and “monetizing” their network, the largest network of “social users”, by far. 

And if they are interested in connecting people, then what do those people own of the network that they themselves comprise? That would be nothing. 

What say do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally “are”? None. 

What trust do they have to surrender to the company, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and more (all controlled 100% by a guy named Zuckerberg)? 100%

“What ‘say’ do they have in how they are used to “monetize” the network that they literally ‘are’? None.”

— D.L.

Who authorized Facebook (or Google) to amass vast databanks of private personal information from a huge chunk of the world’s population, and use that data to amass fortunes of unheard of size using secret proprietary algorithms that they have zero requirement to disclose? Well, technically, users, inadvertently and without understanding, did. Otherwise: No-one. 

Click Here to See “Weapons of Math Destruction
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

Well, technically all of this was “allowed” via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, and states that an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This, effectively, protects websites and “platforms” such as Facebook, from lawsuits in the case that a “user” posts something illegal. There are exceptions, for example, for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law.

This fact does not remove responsibility for building a system that gives massive financial benefit to Facebook, Google, etc and very little, in reality, by way of return or influence to the “user”.

It’s as if a man figured out a way to use mental-telepathy to rob banks and could never be caught or prosecuted due to the fact that no one had ever robbed a bank that way before. And then he claimed that he should be allowed to continue doing it forever, with impunity.

Click Here to See “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

What would Facebook and Zuckerberg have if the billions of “users” stopped using its network? Nothing. 

How little sense this makes just goes on and on. There could be 100s of pages of similar questions and answers and the end result would be a slightly better understanding of the absurdity of the very existence of such a “service” or company or whatever this is.

Why absurd? In a nutshell, Facebook controls private networks that exist “inside” a more public network called, for lack of a better term, “the internet”. And, because of what could be termed a mistake of history they represent a dominant, near monopoly, in the “space” which in this case is currently called “social networks”.

The dominance and the definition of monopoly can be argued endlessly (and likely will be in the coming antitrust cases) but, in the end, the numbers don’t lie. Only one person benefits, in direct payments of trillions of dollars, from a near monopoly in social networks. The billions of people, the very people who are the network, do not. 

A bleak analysis, perhaps, but is there any light at the end of this tunnel?

The current increase in antitrust cases, both in the US and Europe, is a canary-in the-coal-mine moment and the wars over all the arising issues has begun and will go on for years. 

Read more: The Markup is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates how powerful institutions are using technology to change our society and a great place to learn more about it

The fact that Facebook is heavily advertising that they are the “good guy” while Amazon and Google do the same, is both ridiculous and sad, since “good guys” don’t have to buy ads to draw attention to that fact. 

Click Here to See
Ten Argument for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts
and help Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

And the fact that these companies have already started, both in word and deed, to attack each other directly, is an indication of just how serious and all pervasive these mega-wars will be. This is just the beginning. 

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe and it Finally Makes Sense

While none of the companies depicted on the chart above can be said to be without blame for the world of injustice and malfunction that is the internet, and by extension, our world, there is one company that stands apart from the others in so many ways and for so many reasons that they, amazingly, represent some hope within the madness. 

And, not coincidently, they are the one that is already being attacked, in print and software, as the wars begin: Apple. 

How Apple actually represents hope to clean up the tech universe that, arguably, they are most responsible for having created, is likely a hard sell with those that want to lump all these huge companies together. Because, after all, they are all huge. 

However, nothing could be further from the truth. More on this and other burning questions in our next episode, so stay tuned. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

New Apple TV+ Series: Jared Leto in talks to play the ex-CEO of WeWork

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Series of Silicon Valley cautionary tale in development 

Jared Leto could be returning to a TV screen near you. It has been well over 20 years since the show “My So-Called Life” that the actor has starred in any small screen episodic.  This news come with reports that writer and producer Lee Eisenberg and studio exec Drew Crevello are developing a series for Apple TV+ based on the infamous workspace rental startup company ‘WeWork’.  

The series concept is inspired by the 6 part podcast called “WeCrashed: The Rise and Fall of WeWork”.  If Oscar winner Leto signs on to the TV show, he would be cast as the former boss of WeWork, Adam Neumann. 

Neumann, who served as CEO for the company from 2010 to 2019 and later resigned. According to reports at the time, his “eccentric behavior” was one of the main reasons he was pressured to step down.

Leto, who is known for choosing equally eccentric and challenging characters, including his work  in “Suicide Squad”, “American Psycho” and “Dallas Buyers  Club”, could likely more than fit the bill to play Neumann. 

Prior to WeWork’s collapse, it had an estimated value of $47 billion.  The series has been in development since February with Leto currently in negotiations, with additional information to come in the future. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Bye Don! Twitter video goes viral as Biden is announced Official Victor

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1337502753002717184/pu/vid/1280x720/-evUq6C3QUUfwP3q.mp4?tag=10

Above: Twitter Video courtesy of @PaulLeeTeeks

Trump has to confront the new label as loser… 

After the Electoral College affirmed what the majority of us already knew, that President-elect Joe Biden won over President Trump, with an electoral count of 306 vs 232, coincidentally the same margin as Trump had and called a “landslide” in 2016, perhaps a sigh of relief can finally happen. Or even a little laugh. What better way to bid farewell to Trump than with a viral Twitter video. 

https://twitter.com/PaulLeeTeeks/status/1337502815464263681?s=20

Paul Lee Teeks shared a hilarious video of Trump being rolled out of the White House while he rants and raves about the “rigged” and “stolen” election. Trump blabs and continues to flap his gums all the way until the end when he is wheeled and lifted up into a moving truck. 

Read More: Joe Biden & Kamala Harris are Time’s Person of the Year: Trump Lost Twice

The original video comes from creator of the “The President Show” Tony Atamanuik from the Comedy Central network. Teeks recreated the video placing the head of Trump (versus a caricature in the original) with dubbed audio, creating mass interest within the social media world.   The hashtags #LoserOfTheCentury and #TrumpIsALaughingStock trended as a result.

https://twitter.com/TonyAtamanuik/status/1338692494368903168?s=20

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on PoliticsSustainable EnergyRacial Equality & Justice and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Facebook, Google, Antitrust and the All Pervasive Underestimation of the Big Tech Threat

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

The opinions expressed “pro” or “con” regarding big tech abuses of power are both overlooking far more serious issues that lie beneath

After years of public and insider opinion gradually shifting from a state of wonder, awe and hero worship of tech giants and their founders and CEOs, toward a more skeptical stance, and now, finally, government action begins; the fundamental issues that lie beneath are still barely mentioned, let alone widely understood.

In a filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, alleged that Facebook employed anticompetitive tactics, allowing it to bully and bury its rivals. In a strongly worded brief it recommends that the massive company be broken up, specifically by divesting itself of Instagram and WhatsApp.

While past antitrust cases were complex and difficult to understand fully, particularly for the general public, from the little known A & P case in the 30s and 40s to Standard Oil and Ma Bell / AT&T, in each case there were complex issues to address.

However, one simple thing tied them together that could be understood by virtually anyone: businesses that have a win-at-all-costs approach to business tactics and then achieve monopoly power almost always use that power to fulfill ambitions based on self-perpetuating greed at the expense of society as a whole.

Many, from all walks of life, particularly in the U.S., worship the ethos of “winner take all” and even if they are at the lowest levels of the economic ladder still cheer on the most ruthless and morally bankrupt “winners” as heroes, using a bizarre logic, that somehow they might one day see themselves in the winners circle.

This perspective is similar to societies where dictators, such as Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, or emperors are worshiped fervently by the very people that are most exploited and downtrodden under their regimes. Perhaps this is a hardwired genetic human trait, impossible to alter.

In the case of tech giants of the internet era, beginning with Microsoft and its antitrust case, a similar dynamic is no less present, and, no different from the steps that dictators take to encourage obedience and worship from their subjects. In this case it’s massive amounts of money and power used for required self-serving PR and the brutal economic repression of any dissenting voices.

Try to find a book on Amazon’s Jeff Bezos that is not a hero-worship nonsense-title purporting to offer you a way to become a “business genius” like him. You will find a few exceptions, of course, these purporting to offer “hard-hitting” investigative journalism and a sober look at the “real facts”.

These will be watered down, meekly subservient, weak and impotent tombs barely scratching the surface of any negative perspectives on the real problems Amazon and its founder have created, not only for millions of people around the world but for society as a whole.

Even among those that are the most incisive and have a real desire to “dig-deep” and reach the roots of the real problems, there is often still the a priori assumption that somehow, the 26 year evolution of business models that could “succeed” in internet and software based business are to be measured on a scale that presumes that the business models themselves are basically valid, simply because they were able to survive and create massive, nearly immeasurable, wealth for a tiny handful of individuals. .

Taking into account the pervasive pro-big-business bias, it is a miracle in a sense, that the public opinion has shifted so far, to the point where antitrust actions can be seen as valid, by enough of the public at large, that these giant monopolistic tech companies are called into question at all.

The miracle, if we call it that, is only a reflection of just how purely evil and out of control the situation has become, and how many people have been harmed, and in how many different ways this harm has occurred.

From teen suicides to thousands of bankrupt and struggling small businesses to privacy rights trampled in the dirt, the list of abuses and harm, if it were ever brought to light, could fill a thousand page treatise and would read like a recounting of the atrocities of war.

And then there’s the fact that the war is fought with computer code and over territory that has no physical address

Much as collateralized debt obligations and other arcane “synthetic” financial products nearly collapsed the entire world economy in 2008, partially due to the intentional complexity, which served only to hide the stupidity, complex computer algorithms are now at the heart of an ever larger and even more dangerous economic debacle that continues to unfold.

And much of the lack of any pushback against this is the simple ability to hide behind the complex computer methods and concepts that have allowed tech giants to build an even bigger and more dangerous kind of monopolistic behavior than even the so called “Robber Barons” of the Gilded Age.

Even those, in government or in the press, who are pushing back are doing so with, apparently, little understanding of the real dangers that are buried in the code and in the tricks used by very sophisticated, technologically educated people in control of these trillion dollar behemoths.

For example, Facebook is already claiming that the government should not be able to question the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp because they already approved the mergers at the time they happened.

In his excellent article published on medium.com , Will Oremus points out:

But I looked up the FTC’s public statements following those reviews, and it states explicitly that the matter should not be considered permanently settled.

“This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred,” the FTC’s closing letter said. It added, “The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.” Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Also in that article, titled; ‘Competition Is for Losers’: How Peter Thiel Helped Facebook Embrace Monopoly the idea succinctly embodied in the title which refers to a Wall Street Journal piece on Thiel’s book “Zero to One” which he describes as having been “embraced as a business bible in Silicon Valley and beyond” and quotes from including this characterization:

(Thiel) made the case for monopoly as the ultimate goal of capitalism. Indeed, “monopoly is the condition of every successful business,” he asserted. With it, you’re free to set your own prices, think long-term, innovate, and pursue goals other than mere survival. Without it, you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.

And this provides the context within which the current struggle unfolds. To understand the real dangers of the total domination of the internet, which has become the vital lifeline of our economy and social existence, by a handful of trillion dollar companies, that not only embrace limitless greed and dictatorial status within their industry, but see it as the divine right that they hold, and believe they are entitled to aspire toward without interference.

And in another context such behavior would be known as immoral, destructive to society and social justice, and if the laws are adequate to apply; criminal.

And there’s the rub. The antitrust statutes, possibly already inadequate to take on this new kind of robber, have also been weakened since the 80s. Add to that how the pre-existing biases are heavily slanted toward minimizing any accountability for such behavior and is follows that any real reform must rise from the public at large.

The birth of the internet was anything but immaculate

The tragi-comic farce of the story, when seen through the lens of internet history, is how Facebook, Google and Amazon all followed the same absurd arc.

From “underdogs” with massive losses and no income to ridiculously “valuable” “FANG” members championed from the rooftops as heroic winners of darwinian battles to build out the internet for profit. And, finally, after decades of unfettered expansion, being seen more and more for what they are: profit-seeking scams using each a different method to restrain competition and destroy the most valuable asset humanity has ever built: the internet itself.

The complexity of the scams is still the most useful cloak for them to hide behind, each with a different insanely complicated way to force what is a public asset, the internet, into a tool for private greed, at the expense of any real innovation. And the victims are not the competitor firms that they might have destroyed (or bought), but rather the entire population of any territory that they control, with North America being the center of the empire.

The question asked for example of Google or Facebook should not be, “do they provide any services from the public can benefit, in exchange for their obscenely privileged monopoly control over “search” and “social networking”, respectively. The question should be “are they the best possible solution, from the perspective of what is in the best interest of society, for those extremely important functions in our new digital world.

It is not enough to say that “consumers have chosen” each as their go-to tool. If any company or group of companies could do a better job of enabling humanity to communicate, interact and become educated via the internet, why should those other solutions be buried forever under a mountain of greed and self-interest?

This is the infinitely elusive point: No different than Bernie Madoff, the damage they have wrought, by destroying what could have been, will only be understood once they are either gone or forced to cease what they depend on for domination, which would lead to their ultimate demise over time, just as Peter Thiel himself stated:

Without (a monoply), you’re replaceable, and your profits will eventually converge on zero.

Or as Jeff Bezos explained, in what his become his predatory raison d’être: The competition is always one-click-away. This makes every other online seller, in his view, an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs, no matter how small, no matter how weak.

In this sick paranoid view of the world it is truly an all or nothing struggle for survival, with death of all competitors, literally and figuratively, the only acceptable outcome.

With this mindset at the heart of these companies, and with the government and most of the press taking a milk-toast submissive approach (in contrast) the struggle to rein in these monstrous, utterly corrupt empires, will take years if not decades.

However, 2020 will always be seen as the beginning of the end the the gruesome mistake of history that these companies represent.

Companies that achieved dominance and monopoly control of a system meant for public benefit, through the most destructive methods they were able to devise, and then redoubled efforts infinitely to expand using those same destructive and corrupt methods.

In the end there is only one power large enough to intervene, as already at their current size, and while, like a virus, they double in power and economic domination almost annually, and that is the power of the billions that use their platforms everyday. Change will arise when they have damaged themselves by damaging the very societies they prey on, and once damaged, those societies will have no choice but to shed them like the murderous parasites that they are.

That will not happen anytime soon. The general view of these companies, is still very mild and forgiving. And it’s important to note that each case is different and this article applies only to Facebook, Google and Amazon.

Just as most have either forgiven or forgotten the massive bailouts that criminal companies were gifted during the 2008 financial crisis, the perception that these massive tech companies are at worst mildly anti-competitive and at best harmless and just practicing good, successful capitalism, will not be changed overnight.

It can only come after much more pain at the hands of this corrupt system that currently controls the internet, and therefore, our digital lives.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Facebook Antitrust Case Kicks-off with a Bang: 46 States on board, Google Next Up as California Joins in

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

In a filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission, together with 46 states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, alleged that Facebook employed anticompetitive tactics, allowing it to bully and bury its rivals. In a strongly worded brief it recommends that the massive company be broken up, specifically by divesting itself of Instagram and WhatsApp.

“For nearly a decade, Facebook has used its dominance and monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition. By using its vast troves of data and money, Facebook has squashed or hindered what the company perceived to be potential threats.”

–New York attorney general, Letitia James, representing the state group, at a news conference

After the 18 month long investigation, charges are finally arriving, well after Facebook has already made extensive retaliatory changes to its products. The changes that were implemented, which interlinked the functionality of Facebook apps with Instagram and WhatsApp, are clearly meant to try and make it technically impossible, or at least difficult for them to function separately again.

This amounts to a way of using computer code to fabricate a “moat”, basically an excuse or impediment which they hope, apparently, would make it impossible to reverse the changes, in the event they are forced to sell off the previously separate companies.

The brazen and obvious action which appears designed to impede and block any remedies that the court could impose is reminiscent of the now infamous “move fast and break things” motto often attributed to Mark Zuckerberg, and the, just as famous, Silicon Valley truism “Ask forgiveness not permission”.

This kind of preemptive obstruction, while not necessarily illegal in any way, is nevertheless a perfect reflection of the attitude also associated with Facebook via Peter Thiel: “Competition is for Losers” phrase which stems from title of a WSJ article on Thiel’s book and which was adopted fondly by the billionaire.

It is important, from a layman’s perspective, to note that being big or being, effectively, a monopoly, is not enough, necessarily, to justify drastic government imposed remedies. The behavior, however, in other words, wether or not there was abuse of the power a monopoly affords, is crucial.

In the past several years Facebook has been found to be guilty of abuses, primarily in European cases, as have Google and Amazon. All the evidence, so pervasive as to be easily noted by even a casual observer, points to a pattern of behavior that could be seen, and possibly even proven to be, predatory and abusive of market power.

The response from Facebook has been anything but substantive, with the initial defense being a very weak statement that the government should not be allowed “do-overs”:

“Those acquisitions were cleared and if you can buy a company, and eight years, 10 years later, the government can clear them and unwind it — that’s going to be a really big chilling problem for American business, we are not going to be competitive around the world,”

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, in a recent interview with Tamron Hall

The facts in no way back up this surprisingly flaccid response, since the mergers were, in fact never, “approved” just not blocked at the time, and in public statements, in writing, the FTC clearly and specifically stated:

“This action is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not have occurred, The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require.”

As for the decades old “we are not going to be competitive around the world,” comment that is the oldest excuse for awarding big internet companies with special status to run amok going back to Al Gore’s “Internet Superhighway” exemptions from the early 90s.

To quote Kara Swisher in a recent New York Times opinion piece:

“Those charged with regulation have given companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon a very wide berth to grow into some of the most valuable entities in the history of the planet. Their founders are among the richest people ever.”

— Kara Swisher, in the New York Times

And, in case anyone is feeling sorry for poor Facebook, it’s also pertinent to point out that what they claim to need or be entitled to is exactly the kind of special treatment and license to break rules that others would have to abide by.

And that status and privilege is exactly what enabled Facebook (and Amazon and Google) to become so massive and so intensely inclined toward abuse of market power in the first place.

“Action as the public interest may require. “ Remember that phrase, you may be hearing it often, over the next few years, in relation to Facebook, Google and Amazon. And, in the end, it is the public verdict in the marketplace that will ultimately have the power to intercede with enough force to achieve change.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

The Justice Department finally issues antitrust suit against Google for “unlawfully maintaining monopolies”

Internet giants finally receiving long overdue legal scrutiny

After months of investigation and inquiry, the United States’ Justice Department has formally accused Google of illegally sustaining a monopoly over search and search advertising in America. The Department filed the lawsuit on October 20th in the U.S. District Court, beginning what could be a turning point in the Internet economy.

Read More: Amazon, Facebook, and Google will be accountable if Anti-trust law revisions hold

Republicans and Democrats alike have been watching big tech companies for a while now, scrutinizing the big four—Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon – as they’ve grown into corporate behemoths and played cat-and-mouse with American antitrust laws. Only now is the federal government (along with over forty states and jurisdictions that have investigated Google) finally making a move to attempt to keep these juggernauts in check.

Antitrust laws essentially make sure that American businesses cannot develop into illegal monopolies. Monopolies are illegal if they are established or maintained through improper conduct, sfor example, exclusionary or predatory acts. 

Conventionally, the laws protect consumers from situations where a single company holds all of the supply. In the current digital age, though, most of these services are nominally free to consumers. Nevertheless, they can still become hegemonic at the expense of competition.

Because the site’s ascendency has left consumers with the impression that they are unaffected, superficially, Google personnel have long been able to refute the fact that they hold a proper monopoly. However, given that eighty percent of Internet searches go through Google, many politicians (and users) suspect something legally dubious at hand.

As is also the case with Amazon and Facebook there are, like an iceberg of crimes hiding beneath the waterline, these giant firms are engaged in many practices are highly anticompetitive. The behaviors, however rampant,  have either gone unnoticed or, in a purported attempt to bolster internet commerce in a general way, have been intentionally overlooked by governing bodies for decades.

In order for the case to effectively convict Google on antitrust laws, the Justice Department must prove two things. First, that Google has dominance over search. Second, that it actively stifles competition in the search market through deals with other companies.

The fact that Google has dominance over search is quite hard to argue against nowadays. To sell the second part of the case, however, the DOJ will have to look into Google’s business behaviors and deals with other companies such as Apple.

Google essentially pays Apple up to $11 billion to be the default search engine on all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. This is just one example of Google buying its way to the top of the market and making sure that other search engines do not stand a chance.

Of course, Google denies doing anything illegal or sidestepping antitrust laws. The company argues that users actually retain choice when it comes to search engines, but people consistently go to Google for quality. As for the deals with companies like Apple, Google likens it to a cereal brand paying a grocery store for a better spot on the shelf. To Google, it’s simple business.

The courts, however, might not find it quite so simple, as many politicians are reframing antitrust laws in their perspective toward the case and the online marketplace.

This is not the end of the story but barely the beginning with many revelations yet to come

American antitrust laws, and how they are applied, are severely outdated. Most of them were written over a century ago when computers (let alone the Internet) were hardly a concept. Despite a few public outings where tech moguls have had to answer before Washington, the Federal government has not taken much action against these massive modern institutions. Exceptions include a 2001 antirust case against Microsoft for maintaining a monopoly over PC software and a former near-trial against Google when the Federal Trade Commission investigated the Alphabet Inc. for antitrust in the early 2010s.

Meanwhile, other countries have been far more active in holding big tech accountable. The European Union enforces much more timely antitrust policies, and has brought three cases against Google in recent years.

In America, however, Google has been riding off of the free market since its very conceptualization at Stanford University in 1998. The same could be said for Amazon, or Facebook and their respective, nearly mythic, ostensibly humble origins. While this nation’s laws and economy give companies the unique ability to grow, thrive, and expand into global phenomenon, they also have a duty to protect the people and even the playing field when those same companies abuse freedom or gain too much power.

This case will not be a short ride. It will likely take years, but such is the slow, magnificent, changing tide of justice and progress.


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Big TechSustainable EnergyEconomics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.