Remind us again, why families are in such desperate need?
Ivanka Trump, first daughter, posted a video of herself, in an extreme-self-congratulatory fashion, with instrumental music playing in the background. In the oddly disconcerting clip she can be seen working “hard” to hand deliver boxes of food to those in need.
In the final days left of Trump’s term, apparently, his eldest daughter felt the need to make her presence known.
According to many on Twitter, her strange, weak attempts to display compassion (with a clear agenda to promote herself) failed to convey actual concerned authenticity, despite the fact that millions of people continue to be seriously affected during the coronavirus pandemic.
In her Twitter post, along with her PR video, her caption read:
“I visited Woodbridge, VA to help deliver #FarmersToFamilies food boxes to those in need in the community,” she tweeted. “Our #FarmersToFamilies Program has delivered 125 M boxes of farm fresh produce, meat, & dairy and served 3.2 B meals to hungry Americans during the pandemic.”
Many were quick to respond to how the video came off; pointing out how staged, inauthentic and tone-deaf her post actually was.
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.
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.
Above: Photo Collage / Time Inc. / Mock up of Der Spiegel Concept
Changing America’s Story and Awarding Trump what he has Earned
On the same day that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris received the “Time’s Person of the Year” designation, jointly, in another of the new twists that Time likes to feature, Trump got his own award from Germany’s ‘Der Spiegel’ magazine: Loser of the year.
While anyone who has been paying attention, noticed that Trump deserved this award most, if not, all the years of his life, this year it is particularly fitting as he earned it with the most lies and potentially, the most alleged indictable crimes.
Featuring Kamala Harris as co-Person of the year is a nice touch, since she is both a woman of color and was attacked in a particularly vicious and personal way by Trump and his Republican minions during the campaign.
Further, the possibility of real partnership to oust a misogynistic and racist foe showed that humility, dignity and compassion for others could actually win against a bully and, with Kamala Harris on the ticket, could demonstrate leadership and leaders, who are not bullies or failed human beings but empathetic and fully functioning people capable of cooperation and teamwork.
For so many, indeed, over 81.2 million, the time was right to join together and take the old saying “nice guys (or gals) finish last” and turn it on its head – This year, the best man & woman won and the world’s biggest a-hole lost big, which, though long-ish, makes for a more apt phrase to sum up 2020, in the presidential race, at any rate.
Nixon once asserted: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. The implication was not lost on Trump who has seemingly flaunted the law throughout his life and then appeared to shift into overdrive once in the White House.
Naturally, as has been evident as well, also even boasted “I don’t pay taxes because I’m smart”, and when money, especially free money gained at the expense of the less fortunate, it seems Trump and his “Jr. partner Jared Kushner might indeed pull out all the stops.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that, once details on who received pandemic relief loans were revealed by the Small Business Administration, including the PPP or Paycheck Protection Program, multiple businesses linked to both were allegedly present.
NBC news: Over 25 PPP loans worth more than $3.65 million were given to businesses with addresses at Trump and Kushner real estate properties, paying rent to those owners. Fifteen of the properties self-reported that they only kept one job, zero jobs, or did not report a number at all.
While there have been many reports of fraud and abuse related to this and other pandemic relief programs, most stories on these were slanted towards shaming various individuals who had engaged in fraud to obtain the loans.
There were also numerous accounts of, in some cases, public companies with access to billions in capital applying for and receiving $100s of millions of dollars in forgivable loans. Names like Shake Shack, Ruth’s Chris, Potbelly Corp. and others were embroiled in controversy when some information leaked, and in some cases the companies, fearing public boycott or backlash, returned funds. While these examples show no specific wrongdoing on any particular company, the appearance of impropriety is nevertheless in question.
Now with more data the headlines are expanding to include potential impropriety , if not possible criminal action of Trump and Kushner seen as bilking the program at will, as well as massive and tragically-comical mismanagement of the “relief” funds with 100s of examples such as loans payed to companies that did not supply a name and many larger companies using multiple subsidiaries to gang together groups of smaller loans into sums totally tens of millions or more.
According to NBC, All these tricks and potentially more were employed (surprise!) by Trump and Kushner affiliated firms.
NBC: Sweeping [analysis of] data released by the Small Business Administration…found that properties owned by the Trump Organization as well as the Kushner Companies, owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, profited from the program.
The potential abuses, beyond the obvious one that this money was meant to relieve business not connected to government officials, and those who’s business were damaged by the pandemic in general, followed a pattern where the money flowed to those that needed it least (due to massive wealth, such as stories that have circulated about Kanye West) or due to already having existing access to nearly unlimited capital (such as the public companies that lined up to access relief funds rather than use billions they had in reserve).
Other examples of Trump allegedly using and exploiting the presidency are so common as to make it almost redundant to cite these massive, and if true, unethical and potentially criminal abuses. So many have already been noted and cited in the press – from the profits flowing into his properties directly from taxpayer dollars or by diverting foreign officials to them, tax cheating, dirtying money to his daughter and son-in-law, on and on it goes.
The only question that remains is why there appears to be “no-one home” when it comes to holding Trump and his family of abusers accountable. Much has been made of his soon-to-be gone immunity from federal prosecution, but what about the family? Pardons and tra-la-la?
That can’t be the way this ends. Otherwise the rest of us are just as corrupt by letting it happen without a response of appropriate magnitude.
As antitrust suits loom, a digital tax appears as additional government option
Related to French “digital tax” hopes, and which may have future repercussions for other tech related regulation attempts, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook have” signs on for the “Tech for Good Call”. Amazon has declined which Apple continues to negotiate, according to reports.
A list was released by the French government with signatures of 75 executives of tech companies who have signed up to the initiative so far. Notably, the list included Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft President Brad Smith. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Apple’s Tim Cook were absent, however.
For nearly three years President Emmanuel Macron of France has attempted to convince tech giants to begin collaborating with governments to seek remedies for a list of global challenges. Examples are; fighting hate speech online, preserving privacy or paying a so-called “digital-tax”, presumably to offset negative economic effects of the overwhelming dominance of big tech.
Reuters reports that Macron’s advisers said on Monday that the president had asked tech companies to sign up to a new initiative called “Tech for Good Call” underlining principles for the post-COVID world. This development comes as “anti-big-tech” sentiment is increasing, particularly during the massive profit spike the giants are enjoying due to a devastating world-wide pandemic.
A general publicity based initiative could be leverage for negotiations to rein in tech giants
Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.
Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.
In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.
The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.
Also, according to Reuters, the “Tech for Good Call” includes a non-binding pledge to “contribute fairly to the taxes in countries where (they) operate”; refrain & prevent the dissemination of “child sexual abuse material, terrorist or extreme violence online contents”; and “support the ecological transition”, in addition to other things.
Though not legally binding, it is expected that the French will use this tentative agreement to in negotiations during upcoming global forums on regulating Big Tech.
In addition to antitrust suits underway in the US and Europe, the idea of a “digital tax” is being explored and attempted with France and Australia leading the way.
The building chorus for regulation against Google and Facebook stem from the extremely dominant position each holds online, with Google having near total control of search traffic and advertising, while Facebooks monopoly in social media concerns its use of that position to monetize private data through advertising.
“The supportive chorus of elected officials is giving assurance to [the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)] and the [Federal Trade Commission (FTC)] that they have the political support they need to blunt [the companies’] efforts … to pressure the agencies to back off or water down their cases,” former FTC Chairman William Kovacic told WSJ.
Above:Content Discovery App – River video Clip Introduction
An Unlikely Holy Grail: User Sophistication and the Will to Exist Online
In late 2018 a small firm was looking into opportunities in organizing an online co-op for small businesses (CSSinc), similar to the co-ops created by farmers during the great depression. Where else to start than a trade show of more than 1000 small businesses in Las Vegas. In an informal test, they checked all the web sites listed in the show directory as an indicator of the state of web sophistication among the participants.
Naturally the 10% that were functioning, a few of which at a high level, were all the largest companies attending the show. With costs to set up, and even designing a company web site, at an all time low, why would so many pass up the opportunity to make use of this powerful tool?
‘This is Water’ and the internet dilemma that has swallowed the world
In 2005, David Foster Wallace addressed the graduating class at Kenyon College with a speech that is now one of his most read pieces.
In it, he argues, gorgeously, against “unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.” He begins with a parable:
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”
This oft quoted passage is about how the world around us can be easily misunderstood by lack of awareness. And, maybe, by the lack of any perceived need to notice what’s really going on.
The two most shocking things about the anecdote above, regarding 90% of small businesses lack of internet presence (or sophistication), are how this could be the case after more than 20 years of the internet being at the center of commerce and, well, life, and what it says about the “water” we are all swimming in.
2020 is the year that the internet became even more important for all our lives. Less obvious is that it is also the year that the problems and obstacles are more important than ever to overcome, and that starts with seeing the water we are all swimming in.
In this acclaimed documentary (available on Netflix) a lot of both problems and solutions focus on the dangers of the current giant-tech dominated internet environment on the “end-user” and the general public.
While that sphere of influence is a serious and growing problem, it is the control and domination by a few massive companies, to the virtual exclusion of smaller businesses, that, to a large degree caused the sick, twisted inequitable and unfair system in the first place.
The relative size imbalance is literally so massive that it is rendered incomprehensible, and, like water to the fish mentioned above, invisible.
A happy shiny logo of, say, coca-cola, looks just as harmless (or menacing, depending on the perspective) as that of Amazon or Facebook, who may be hundreds of times larger in market-cap than the soft-drink giant with long history as a “big” American company. Size of this magnitude is impossible to conceive of by most of us.
But the perception of the giants that control the internet as harmless, or even beneficial and to be admired, is rapidly changing. Therein also lies the potential for probably the only hope of positive change for small business and for society in the US and across the globe.
A Revolution of Perception is Required and already Underway
Part of the problem, one that is growing, admittedly, every day, is the sheer scale of the inequity and corruption. Why even try, as a small business, to go up against the giants that “own” the water we swim in?
Ultimately what is necessary is a sea-change (forgive the continued metaphor) within overall population, both consumers and small businesses. And that starts with the perception that it is the “people” that decide how and what the internet will be who will be “permitted” to interact. An Algorithm own as proprietary secret software by an internet behemoth? Or a decentralized more kaleidoscopic solution that was an inherent promise from the initial days of the internet’s creation?
The signs of change are all around. The “direct to consumer” trend that has produced massive success stories also paved the way for the emerging system of smaller companies being able to reach out directly and actually do business with customers with, sometimes, minimal involvement of the giants.
The signs that this can work are gradually being seen – shopify’s success in offering software and services to businesses wanting to establish a direct connection to buyers is a growing trend. There are many other companies that have recognized the trend and are trying to ride this wave toward a different method of communication between businesses and so-called consumers.
Here are some examples of companies that are taking a new approach to the way we communicate and interact online:
However, the ultimate driver of positive change in the internet will be the increased sophistication of users, both professional and at the individual level.
User Sophistication and Trust: an unlikely but all-important Grail
Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter, TikTok and more have all embraced direct in-app-shopping as a way to expand beyond content. Even Google has started a program to allow buyers to purchase from search results without leaving the platform. While these initiatives are all coming from the giant tech firms themselves, they are, ultimately, sowing the seeds of their own demise.
They are, in essence, teaching buyers to forego the now standard system of choosing between Amazon and “the rest” in online shopping. This choice, helped along by billions in losses to subsidize “impossibly low” prices plus free shipping paid for by Amazon’s loss-leader strategies, was never a fair or realistic one and created the massive, unsustainable imbalances in online commerce we see today.
The massive and very real paranoia of the giant companies is based on the clear and deep understanding that the competition is always “1-click-away”, which is the unfulfilled promise of the internet in the first place.
D.L.
The greatest obstacle has never been the massive price-dumping schemes or even the sell-at-a-loss free shipping concept that kept buyers from having a second choice in e-commerce. It has been the lack of user sophistication of the sellers and the buyers in the online forum which prevented easier movement from one online option to another.
The massive and very real paranoia of the giant companies is based on the clear and deep understanding that the competition is always “1 click away”, which is the unfulfilled promise of the internet in the first place.
So called “moats” and systems to block users from initiating and exercising choice are built-up and keep getting deeper and more complex. But sophisticated users can, and eventually will, easily just opt-out at any time, when alternatives that they prefer begin to proliferate.
And there is a growing and invisible ocean that already exists all around us. As far-fetched as it may seem “the ocean we swim in” will one day be in no way similar to the deeply problematic one we swim in today and a thorough a change from the bottom up as well as the top down will, finally, bring about a new era in online communication and commerce.
Above: 80 Million in Washington D.C.? Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock
Pseudo-conciliatory tone vanishes in a haze of Tryptophan
Chalk it up to just another day in Trump-world where nonsense is fact and facts don’t exist. After making another non-concession-consession on Thursday, stating that “of course” he would vacate the White House if Biden has won the electoral college vote by December 14th (which is the deadline for those votes to be certified), on Friday, he had, apparently, re-thought that whole “be a reasonable human” thing.
In two tweets that were both marked “This claim about election fraud is disputed” the current election result “denier in chief” postulated that president-elect Biden “can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous ‘80,000,000 votes’ were not fraudulently or illegally obtained,” and further, that “Biden only did well in the large cities of Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Milwaukee, which he claimed have “long [been] known as being politically corrupt.”
The latter is, of course, completely false, and the former is an absurd assertion, even from this source.
Also claiming, with as much false bravado as someone in his losing position could muster, that Biden has a “big, unsolvable problem”.
Trump, laughingly, put forth the theory that “Biden only did well in the large cities of Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Milwaukee”, and added a baseless claim that those cities (that were most assuredly not the “only” ones where Biden did well) have “long [been] known as being politically corrupt.”
Um, Los Angeles ? New York City? We could go down this list all day. “Only did well?”
Which leads to the real question here: who, outside of the thoroughly brainwashed, would even consider such nonsense. Do losing teams in the Super-bowl get to dispute every point on the scoreboard, after the game is over? Does winning by more than 6 million votes count for anything in this wacko universe?
Biden can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous “80,000,000 votes” were not fraudulently or illegally obtained. When you see what happened in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia & Milwaukee, massive voter fraud, he’s got a big unsolvable problem!
Perhaps, to insure absolute certainty, 80 million people should show up at the White House to remind Trump why he must, and will, be moving out on January 20th, if not before (wink).
Biden did poorly in big cities (Politico), except those of Detroit (more votes than people!), Philadelphia, Atlanta and Milwaukee, which he had to win. Not surprisingly, they are all located in the most important swing states, and are long known for being politically corrupt!
An intimate look inside the life and rise of the remarkable Ms. Thunberg
At the 2019 United Nations Climate Action Summit, a young girl made headlines as she condemned world leaders on destroying the climate and leaving the younger generation to deal with the environmental repercussions. Her heartfelt speech received much attention from fellow activists, celebrities and leaders. During the UN Climate Action Summit, she said “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic grow – How Dare You!”
The, then 16 year old, soon became the inspired voice for the youth, a next generation’s leader, as she has continued her mission in raising awareness of the global climate emergency. Last year, Time Magazine named her ‘Person of the Year’ and she has also been nominated two years in a row for a Nobel Peace Prize. Her name, if you already didn’t know, is Greta Thunberg.
The upcoming “I am Greta” documentary which will stream on the Hulu platform November 13 follows the teenage climate activist during her rise to prominence and how she sparked a global impact with her school strikes and protests. The doc gives viewers a deeper look and will include never-before-seen-footage, capturing meetings with government leaders, public appearances and global protests.
The film will also show the young lady behind the scenes and how she lives her daily life, including scenes of being with her family, her process of writing speeches, how she deals with the stress of nonstop travel and her Asperger’s syndrome. The doc also features footage of Greta having to deal with the public scrutiny, from climate-deniers to hangers-on and the toll taken from being the “face of climate change”.
The documentary culminates with Greta’s extraordinary two-week journey on a wind-powered sailboat. Her voyage across the Atlantic Ocean starts as she leaves the UK in order to reach the UN Climate Action Summit in New York City. Thunberg took to the sea as she no longer flies to any events due to the high carbon emissions caused by air travel.
Nathan Grossman, a Swedish director, told press when asked what he hopes viewers will take away from the film, “Greta and other young people demand a safe future and that leaders listen to the science – instead they are met with empty words from politicians, and ridicule or even death threats from individuals. This is the source of so much of her frustration and I hope viewers will leave with a lot of that frustration as well.”
The groundbreaking speeches of Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist who has become the voice of a generation, including her historic address to the United Nations
In August 2018 a fifteen-year-old Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg, decided not to go to school one day in order to protest the climate crisis. Her actions sparked a global movement, inspiring millions of students to go on strike for our planet, forcing governments to listen, and earning her a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
No One Is Too Small to Make A Difference brings you Greta in her own words, for the first time. Collecting her speeches that have made history across the globe, from the United Nations to Capitol Hill and mass street protests, her book is a rallying cry for why we must all wake up and fight to protect the living planet, no matter how powerless we feel. Our future depends upon it.
Search Battle Lynxotic Predicted is about to Breakout Big time
In a year that has already offered AppleOne, 5G, and perpetual AirTag teases, Apple Inc might have yet another major project hidden up its sleeve. According to a report from the Financial Times, the tech company has recently partaken in research and development indicative of creating a new original search engine.
For years, Google has been the default search engine on Apple devices. This is part of an ongoing deal between the two companies where Google pays Apple a pretty penny to foreground their services. Now, however, Google is facing an antitrust suit from the Department of Justice. This case claims that Google has a monopoly over search and directly sites its relationship with Apple as evidence.
If the DOJ manages to win against Google, it could be the end of its search engine arriving pre-encrypted in all iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Thus, an in-house Apple search engine comes at an opportune time. Not only will it provide Apple with a new default search platform, but it will also muster some competition against Google— one of the things that the antitrust case desperately calls for.
Any Engine at All by Apple is Earth-shattering to the Status Quo of Big Tech
Nothing is set in concrete about this speculative Apple search engine yet. All we know for sure is that the latest version of iOS 14 shows signs of increased search technology. Under the upgraded operating system, iPhone users can type in questions directly on their devices’ home screens and arrive at Internet results without any middleman. This has also led to an uptick in Apple’s spidering tools, which comb and datafy the web for a smoother search experience.
These changes in iOS 14 are subtle, but given the context, they could be laying the seeds for something much larger. Tellingly, former Google head of search John Geannandrea also oversees these recent Apple advancements. Geannandrea joined Apple three years ago, and while his main focus at the company has been Siri thus far, he obviously has the expertise and experience for helming a Google-like project.
Some believe that Siri is the base of Apple’s increased search interests. Perhaps the new technologies are simply working to refine the voice assistant rather than setting up a wholly alternative Google competitor. At the same time, though, with the proper expansion, Siri could very well evolve into a worthy Google rival, especially if it becomes the one-stop search engine on all Apple devices.For now, users will just have to wait while events unfold. Experts say that the antitrust case against Google will go on for years, and if Apple is indeed developing its own search engine alternative, it will likely take just as long.
2008 and it’s Aftermath was a Wake Up Call that was Heeded by Virtually No-one
There are many good films on the economic collapse of 2008 (The Big Short is a favorite), also known as “The Great Recession” for fear of using the “D” word. Books too have opined on the lessons learned and, in some cases, taken dubious credit for the “rescue” of the world economy.
Watched or read closely, these books, with the exclusion of the self-congratulatory ones mentioned above, all point to a sobering conclusion: the underlying issues that nearly led to a protracted worldwide economic collapse were not solved or fixed but “the can was simply kicked further down the road”.
Unfortunately, they also agree that “further down the road”, currently around 11 years later, translates to “soon”. Accordingly, we’d all be wise to revisit the 2008 crisis and read some of the conclusions, in detail, that have been drawn from a deeper study of the remaining and very serious issues faced as we go further forward into the 2020’s.
So much of our destinies are tied to economics, it is always a wise area to begin to look for solutions to all macro-dilemmas
Of course, now, in a crowded life-raft of a planet, we also have the rising threat of Climate Change, the ongoing and terrifying challenges associated with global pandemics and sociopolitical trends, that point towards anything but harmonious co-operation, within and between societies around the world.
All the more reason to embrace what at times appears to be the lone bright spot, in this saga of seemingly-endless doom and gloom: we have educational resources available and the modern marvel of human-networked-communication devices (a.k.a. the internet and the software and hardware we use to access it), is becoming a more powerful ally by the hour.
Here are books we highly recommend to start your journey towards your heroic contributions to finding solutions and hope, as we look to the future:
The Great Devaluation: How to Embrace, Prepare, and Profit from the Coming Global Monetary Reset
The Great Devaluation is the #1 bestselling book that explains why the real crisis facing the world today is not the Coronavirus. The real crisis facing the world is explosive government debt and deficits. Governments are now left with no choice but to spend more than they make, borrow more than they can ever repay, and devalue their currencies to cover it all up.
Former Hollywood storyteller Adam Baratta brings monetary policy to life in this follow-up to his national bestseller, Gold Is A Better Way. You’ll learn how and why Federal Reserve polices have facilitated an explosion in government debt and have systematically undermined the world financial system in the name of profit. The result? An out of control system where financial inequality has become a ticking time bomb set to blow up the global economy. Click here to see “The Great Devaluation” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World
Click here to see “Crashed” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
We live in a world where dramatic shifts in the domestic and global economy command the headlines, from rollbacks in US banking regulations to tariffs that may ignite international trade wars. But current events have deep roots, and the key to navigating today’s roiling policies lies in the events that started it all–the 2008 economic crisis and its aftermath.
Despite initial attempts to downplay the crisis as a local incident, what happened on Wall Street beginning in 2008 was, in fact, a dramatic caesura of global significance that spiraled around the world, from the financial markets of the UK and Europe to the factories and dockyards of Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, forcing a rearrangement of global governance. With a historian’s eye for detail, connection, and consequence, Adam Tooze brings the story right up to today’s negotiations, actions, and threats–a much-needed perspective on a global catastrophe and its long-term consequences. Click here to see “Crashed” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, Seventh Edition
This seventh edition of an investment classic has been thoroughly revised and expanded following the latest crises to hit international markets. Renowned economist Robert Z. Aliber introduces the concept that global financial crises in recent years are not independent events, but symptomatic of an inherent instability in the international system.
Covering such topics as the history and anatomy of crises, speculative manias, and the lender of last resort, this book puts the turbulence of the financial world in perspective. Click here to see “Manias, Panics, and Crashes” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
The Fed and Lehman Brothers: Setting the Record Straight on a Financial Disaster
The bankruptcy of the investment bank Lehman Brothers was the pivotal event of the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed. Ever since the bankruptcy, there has been heated debate about why the Federal Reserve did not rescue Lehman in the same way it rescued other financial institutions, such as Bear Stearns and AIG. The Fed’s leaders from that time, especially former Chairman Ben Bernanke, have strongly asserted that they lacked the legal authority to save Lehman because it did not have adequate collateral for the loan it needed to survive.
Based on a meticulous four-year study of the Lehman case, The Fed and Lehman Brothers debunks the official narrative of the crisis. It shows that in reality, the Fed could have rescued Lehman but officials chose not to because of political pressures and because they underestimated the damage that the bankruptcy would do to the economy. The compelling story of the Lehman collapse will interest anyone who cares about what caused the financial crisis, whether the leaders of the Federal Reserve have given accurate accounts of their actions, and how the Fed can prevent future financial disasters. Click here to see “The Fed and Lehman Brothers” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System–And Themselves
Click here to see “Too Big to Fail” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Brand New for 2018: an updated edition featuring a new afterword to mark the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis. The brilliantly reported New York Times bestseller that goes behind the scenes of the financial crisis on Wall Street and in Washington to give the definitive account of the crisis, the basis for the HBO film.
In one of the most gripping financial narratives in decades, Andrew Ross Sorkin–a New York Times columnist and one of the country’s most respected financial reporters–delivers the first definitive blow-by-blow account of the epochal economic crisis that brought the world to the brink. Through unprecedented access to the players involved, he re-creates all the drama and turmoil of these turbulent days, revealing never-before-disclosed details and recounting how, motivated as often by ego and greed as by fear and self-preservation, the most powerful men and women in finance and politics decided the fate of the world’s economy. Click here to see “Too Big to Fail” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Crash of 2008 and What It Means: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets
Click here to see “The Crash of 2008“ and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
In the midst of one of the most serious financial upheavals since the Great Depression, George Soros, the legendary financier and philanthropist, writes about the origins of the crisis and proposes a set of policies that should be adopted to confront it.
Soros, whose breadth of experience in financial markets is unrivaled, places the crisis in the context of his decades of study of how individuals and institutions handle the boom and bust cycles that now dominate global economic activity. In a concise essay that combines practical insight with philosophical depth, Soros makes an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the great credit crisis and its implications for our nation and the world. Click here to see “The Crash of 2008 and What it Means” and help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
The problem of slow and expensive broadband access in the USA is not a technological one. The US lags behind due to the pseudo-geographical monopolies held by various ISPs and the ability they have enjoyed to be able to gouge customers with high priced bad service. Lack of competition often results in slow progress or no progress.
That is all about to change. You don’t need to have a technician to analyze the various 5G systems, or compare carriers chances of “winning” to realize that the very fact that speeds and options are increasing exponentially is going to re-write the map when it comes to who controls the cash-cow subscription gravy train. That system is about to collapse.
In steps Elon, and his little copy-cat-side-kick Jeffy Bezos, and now the landscape is about to become unrecognizable
First, 5G speeds rival or exceed the former fixed / desktop speeds which had commanded a premium for the geographically entrenched providers. 5G home systems will also be available in many areas that will be competitive in speed, price and convenience.
SpaceX’s Starlink is a serious project; with nearly 1000 satellites already in orbit out of an eventual 12,000 and launches continuing almost weekly with 60 each time. This ambitious plan will eventually completely encircle the earth with interconnected satellites that will link through intermediary “ground stations” with up to 1 million planned for USA alone. Each ground station is just under 19 inches (.48 m) across.
“It looks like a UFO on a stick,” according to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk “It’s very important that you don’t need a specialist to install. The goal is for … just two instructions and they can be done in either order: Point at sky, plug in.”
Satellite Broadband, such as SpaceX’s Starlink will not only add ubiquitous 100mbps and higher, low latency coverage, it will also cover the same areas with high population density, major cities, where both current systems and 5G are also focusing.
Exact pricing is as yet unknown but it is extremely likely that there will be a high pitched battle over customers once the various systems go into the next phase of the rollout. And all of this is not factoring in additional players in 5G and satellite systems.
Longer term (2 years +) there will be major world-wide implications of this shift toward more and faster options in internet connectivity
The first shift, primarily driven by the geographical independence of satellite broadband such as Starlink, will be a decentralization of populations at massive scale. While we are looking at a world where, due to the current pandemic countermeasures, WFH a.k.a. work-from-home is becoming more than a temporary factor. As many as 20 major companies such as Google and Microsoft have announced extended or permanent work-from-home policies as of October 2020.
There are already plenty of very serious discussions about what will be done with all the skyscrapers and office buildings once there are no workers to fill the offices. This is not idle chit-chat. A migration has already begun away from the insanely overpriced rents and home prices in places like Silicon Valley, to take advantage of the work-from-home-anywhere approach.
Extrapolate based on increased speed and availability of connectivity to millions of locations not currently viable, each of which soon to have internet at minimum speeds rivaling the current world champion Liechtenstein (see above), and you will recognize the beginnings of an exodus of epic proportions.
Just in time, unfortunately, for an economic upheaval due to the aftermath of the still-ongoing global pandemic and, of yes, the issues of accelerated global warming, which will, coincidentally, affect costal “elite” cities like Miami, SanFrancisco, New York and others around the world to a disproportionally large degree.
“The reality is that a technological utopian vision, one where the world is able to shift to sustainable energy and regenerative farming, and create economies based on prosperous and equal distribution of the wealth generated by those systems, [along with AI and robot technology powered by sustainable clean energy], can only be realized by an acceleration of learning and positive social change. “
-DL
These changes, to be clear, are not all “bad” nor are they all the cause of negative side-effects such as the current covid-19 outbreak.
The reality is that a technological utopian vision, one where the world is able to shift to sustainable energy and regenerative farming, and create economies based on prosperous and equal distribution of the wealth generated by those systems, [along with AI androbot technology, powered by sustainable clean energy), can only be realized by an acceleration of learning and positive social change.
Change is urgently needed to build out the human networked communication system that will enable the learning and cooperation which is the only hope for the survival of our species. 5G, the iPhone 12 and SpaceX’s Starlink Satellite Broadband are going to be huge factors, in making the first baby-steps toward that change, possible..
Most articles on 5G since the Apple iPhone 12 launch event on October 13th have been looking in the rearview mirror to predict the future: 5G will “disappoint” due to the slow buildout, technical limitations of the format, and various issues with all the competing systems and carriers, and these arguments are casting doubt on the much touted potential.
This perspective misses the point on so many levels it’s difficult to know where to begin to unpack the myriad of misunderstandings.
Much of the technical discussion has been focused on the various flavors of 5G and the associated limitations and advantages of each. The fact that the fastest 5G, which goes by the sub-category moniker millimeter wave, is not instantly available everywhere for the 5G capable iPhones, and that they will not be in the hands of most consumers before next year, has been met with feigned shock and bewilderment.
And further, they highlight the confusion mounting over the various providers and the various flavors: 5G, 5G E, 5G UW or 5G+ as they are designated by “service indicators” on the iPhone 12 itself. Verizon Communications Inc., T-Mobile US Inc. and AT&T Inc. each have their own systems they have developed and are building out – looking for a piece of the 5G market, expected to be around $1.15 trillion by 2025.
First and foremost – since Apple and iPhone are the leader of all innovations in the marketplace – not necessarily by the sheer number of handsets sold, but by the focus on increasing technical and aesthetic quality and appealing to the top demographic, not to mention the majority of early adopters, it is precisely the fact that, until now, the iPhone 5G handset did not yet exist, and for that reason the buildout is not further along.
The fact that in real-world tests it is already performing at up to 7 times the fastest previously available connections, was coupled inevitably with the caveat; physical locations where these speeds can be accomplished are currently hard to find.
Due to the technical issues with this ultra-high speed version of 5G, the inability to travel more than very short distances and the lack of ability to penetrate obstacles or walls, the possibility to get these amazing speeds are, at present, more likely to be found in outdoor locations.
This is, admittedly, an odd conundrum, but you can be sure, with the upcoming massive increase in competition for ISP customers, it is one that will find at least some viable solutions very soon. There are many billions at stake for those that can find ways to improve this issue.
“Standing in front of a camera store in South of Market, I got 5G speeds reaching 2,160 megabits a second, which was 2,900 percent faster than 4G. Even where it was a tad slower — behind the Safeway parking lot in the Marina district — the 5G iPhone drew speeds of 668 megabits a second, which was 1,052 percent faster than 4G.”
– Brian X. Chen for the New York Times
The carriers have not had the market to build for and needed to be pushed by a huge influx of iPhone 12 owners. Then, meaning now, they will begin to compete with one another for that extremely lucrative group of users. And that rising competitive battle is not the only one looming on the horizon.
Regardless of the ultimate time frame of the build-out, there is an obvious and very meaningful conclusion that we can reach here: 1 year from now things will look very different in the options available for those who want to work and play with the help of a faster internet connection (meaning, obviously, everybody).
As can be seen from the chart above (source: fastmetrics) in early 2020 the US ranked 13th in desktop download speed while mobile speeds ranked even worse coming in at #33 (various sources have US at #10 for fixed broadband). Liechtenstein is nearly 4x faster, on average, than the US. Also note that the highest average is one-tenth to one-twentieth of the eventual “ideal conditions” speeds of 5G.
The future of connectivity can only get better and faster from here. And with the power of Apple, the iPhone 12 and that huge affluent user base the improvements will begin soon and quickly accelerate to a fever-pitch by next year’s iPhone launch. (Will they call it the iPhone 13?)..
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.
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.
Made in secrecy during the past 6 months with interviews from administration insiders
Just when it seemed like 2020 could not get any stranger, President Donald Trump announced via Twitter on October 2nd that he and First Lady Melania Trump tested positive for COVID-19. In what some would see as a ‘karmic’ coincidence, within twenty-four hours of this breaking news, Neon media dropped a trailer for the new documentary “Totally Under Control,” which focuses on the President and his administration’s unsuccessful response to the coronavirus.
“Totally Under Control” is the second Trump-focused project from documentarian Alex Gibney. Earlier this year, the director released “Agents Of Chaos,” an HBO mini-series centered on Russian involvement in the 2016 election. Gibney is also responsible for the 2010 Oscar nominated doc, “Client 9: The Rise And Fall Of Eliot Spitzer” and the 2007 Oscar winner, “Taxi To The Dark Side.” Most of his films take on timely topics through an investigative lens. “Totally Under Control” will be no different.
Unsurprisingly, Gibney latest movie condemns the Trump administration, as it chronicles how the President handled the coronavirus across the first half of 2020. Its synopsis states:
“On January 20th, 2020 the US and South Korea both discovered their first cases of COVID-19. However, nine months later, the novel Coronavirus has claimed the lives of over 200,000 Americans and caused staggering economic damage, while in South Korea, there were no significant lockdowns and, in an urbanized population of 51 million, only 344 lives have been lost. Where did we go wrong?”
The film aims to answer this question and shed light on America’s complicated, corrupted, and fruitless reaction to the global pandemic. To do this, Gibney uses news footage from the past ten months— much of it showing Trump’s early, woefully dismissive thoughts on the coronavirus before it hit the United States.
He also interviews experts from doctors, to scientists, to government officials, all of whom agree that the current administration’s reaction to COVID was absolutely abhorrent from the start.
The trailer plays out like that of a disaster movie, beginning with former Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority leader, Rick Bright explaining, “The scientists knew what to do for the pandemic response. The plan was in front of us, but leadership would not do it.” Bright goes on to recall how he tired bringing this vital information to the public, but was consequentially fired from his federal position.
As the trailer unfolds, the music gets more and more intense. The interviewees retell the all-too-familiar 2020 story of how COVID got worse by the day and the United States government did nothing to combat it. Meanwhile, quasi-apocalyptic images of ubiquitous ambulances, omnipresent sirens, medial personnel in hazmat suits, restless political rallies, and so on flash across the screen.
All the while, Trump’s voice comes in and out with infamous phrases such as “It will disappear,” “It will be wonderful,” and most egregiously, “I don’t take responsibility at all.”
Art imitates life as covid disbeliever enters hospital after contracting virus that affects ‘almost nobody’
Today, these statements are more ironic than ever before, as Trump himself has been checked into the Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland for COVID. The diagnosis occurred just two days after the first presidential debate, where Trump continued to downplay the coronavirus in favor of reopening the country.
“Totally Under Control” will be available On-Demand starting October 13th and will stream on Hulu starting October 20th. Although the film focuses on current (and ongoing) events, it is not the first piece of media to tackle the coronavirus, and it surely won’t be the last.
Nike Shoe Steps on Sad Amazon – Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Upsplash
Just Do It – Nike Dunks on, or Rather Dumps Amazon
In 2017 Nike participated in a pilot program to test out selling a small sampling of its products on the Amazon e-commerce site. Now, in late 2019, Nike made the decision to end that relationship, one that will have only lasted a little over two years. This parting will mean that Nike will no longer sell any of its merchandise directly through Amazon.com.
In a Yahoo Finance interview with the President, Heidi O’Neil, she explained, “We have ended our pilot with Amazon — it comes back to being incredibly committed to amazing experiences for our consumers, direct relationships and building unbreakable relationships. We want to move forward and make sure we continue to innovate on our own platform.”
Nike’s separation from Amazon comes at a time when Nike has also made internal changes to its leadership. Heidi O’Neil has been President of Nike Direct for one year (working within Nike in the marketing department for 20 years). Mark Parker current CEO will soon be stepping down and taking on the role of executive chair and be succeeded by John Donahoe at the start of the new year on January 13, 2020. Donahoe was the former CEO of eBay and current chairman of PayPal, his experience with e-commerce and online payment systems will surely serve Nike well.
Sharing Customer Relations is not what Amazon was Built On
Nike’s shift away from Amazon serves the company’s larger mission to provide stronger customer relations. Using a direct-to-consumer (DTC) business approach, the aim is to sell more Nike products through its own website and stores – which is something not possible when partnering with Amazon.
Since making a purchase through Amazon, all points of communication begin and end and are funneled through its platform. If any third-party vendor (even Nike) required additional information from a buyer or wanted to reach out to establish more of a relationship with customer – this involves, at best, a shared information system as the customer is deemed, by Amazon, to be its own, regardless of what brand they are purchasing. This stranglehold of customer data allows for Amazon to keep control in the purchasing process from start to finish.
In addition, companies that sell on Amazon and have repeat business on the platform do not reap the customer relation benefits, instead Amazon asserts control of that customer relationship.
Nike’s status as a well-established brand fortunately does not necessarily need to rely on Amazon’s fast shipping and low prices in order to its attract customers – instead the company can focus more on its desired goals to bring about “unbreakable relationships” with those that sport Nike footwear and branded gear.
After Nike’s exit from Amazon, things can only get better: For Nike
Nike counterfeits and unauthorized sellers have always been a concern for the company and was a major discussion point prior to entering into the pilot program with Amazon. Brands that do not sell directly on Amazon are often faced with resellers filling that gap. Grey market goods and resellers with fake or counterfeit products have been a major problem with Nike related products – even conducting a simple Amazon search for Nike products will yield many a reviews that point out the above issues.
“The move shows us that strong brands realize that traffic driven to their own site is self-sustaining, more profitable, and actually brand enhancing, while traffic and incremental revue from Amazon.com is less profitable but also less brand enhancing.”
– Randy Konik, Jefferies & Company ANalyst
Although Nike will cease listing on Amazon, the e-commerce site will still have third party sellers that hold Nike products available for purchase, which leaves the door open for problems relating to authenticity that customers will have to risk if they purchase on a site other than Nike.com.
The counterfeit issue within the Amazon marketplace has been such a rampant problem that another large name footwear brand, Birkenstock removed its products and no longer sell on Amazon as of 2016.
Nike, as one of the best known product lines to leave the online-selling platform is sure to affect Amazon’s future attempts of attracting other big name brands.
Randy Konik a Jefferies analyst spoke about Nike’s departure: “The move shows us that strong brands realize that traffic driven to their own site is self-sustaining, more profitable, and actually brand enhancing, while traffic and incremental revue from Amazon.com is less profitable but also less brand enhancing.”
