Imagine a Monster Dictator who claims he wants to Free us all from “Traditional Gatekeepers” while he Controls the Ultimate Gate with Iron Fist
Here, a man who almost single-handedly controls the world’s largest social network – with users counted in billions, implies that there is any connection whatsoever with heroes of the history of journalism and what is now disparaged as “The Media” but was once called the 4th Estate.
People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society. People no longer have to rely on traditional gatekeepers in politics or media to make their voices heard, and that has important consequences.
– Mark Zuckerberg
Claiming that, somehow, thousands of independent newspapers with tens of thousands of writers and editors, challenging governments and investigating corruption and lies is similar in any way to a digital dictatorship that controls every word or image through its algorithms, and has as its only goal to maximize private profits, is an outrage – and yet this point has only been hinted at in even the most critical coverage.
Express Ourselves at Scale? Really? As long as His Algorithm deems it in Facebook’s Monetary Interest
Mentioning the “traditional gatekeepers” blocking voices, as if his private, for-profit platform has no gate and makes no decision in which voices are heard and by whom is a lie, told in plain sight, so enormous it is shocking.
Except, as he clearly hopes, on hearing vague pronouncements about a fantasy world, most will just switch focus, away from the real way his digital empire functions to some kind of vague discussion of “free speech”. And, in the case of political advertising, speech that he collects millions of dollars to promote and propagate, with no thought of actual free speech that will be drowned out and silenced by his dictatorial decision. That’s the real gatekeeper at work.
Talking about “free speech” as having any role whatsoever on a platform where exposure is controlled 100% by the same network’s private corporate ownership is worse than any Jospeh Goebbles propaganda the Nazi’s ever came up with and is an Orwellian nightmare come to life.
Since Zuckerberg’s speech was clearly designed to confuse and cover up this simple, obvious fact, using Trump style repetition of simple irrelevant lies to influence people to abandon the more complex truths, the underlying truth bears repeating.
I heard #MarkZuckerberg's ‘free expression’ speech, in which he referenced my father. I'd like to help Facebook better understand the challenges #MLK faced from disinformation campaigns launched by politicians. These campaigns created an atmosphere for his assassination. pic.twitter.com/h97gvVmtSZ
Yelling “fire” in a Crowded Theater is of no use if the Crowd can be digitally disappeared at any time
Claiming that “censorship” of “free speech” is not appropriate for a platform that controls who sees and hears that content 100% at all times has to stand as the criminal obfuscation of the century.
As misleading propaganda it is brilliant in its stupidity. To imply that any speech at any time is “free” on a platform that controls access by each and every user at all times is ludicrous at best and vile propaganda at worst.
Have millions of dollars to spend to ensure that your lies are seen by millions? No problem. Have inflammatory disgusting views to share? Sure, the algorithms love anything that increases “engagement”.
On the other hand, as members of the actual 4th Estate found out during the “Great Purge” of 2018, if Zuckerberg & Co decide that you should not be seen for any reason, usually a reason that pertains to increasing profits for Facebook, then you are disappeared, Pinochet style, and can forget about your “free speech” being heard or seen ever again.
Nice way to build a “5th Estate “ to protect us from “traditional gatekeepers”.
We intentionally made a Facebook ad with false claims and submitted it to Facebook’s ad platform to see if it’d be approved. It got approved quickly and the ad is now running on Facebook. Take a look: pic.twitter.com/7NQyThWHgO
Algorithmic Crimes are the Real Story, bigger and worse than Traditional Antitrust Violations
Just mention the word “algorithm” and we all tend to get glossy-eyed and begin to lose interest.
Never mind that the results of your Google search are controlled by algorithms that “decide” what you should be allowed to see or not, while what you may buy is controlled by the private, infinitely biased algorithm employed by Amazon, whose only goal is to increase its own profits at your expense. And then there’s Facebook.
A master of dystopian science fiction would be hard pressed to envision a more sinister, hellish world than the one we already inhabit, where what you think, what you think you “know”, what you believe and what you consume are all controlled by what are essentially robot brains, owned and controlled by evil private corporations with trillion dollar market caps.
And Mr. Zuckerberg has the nerve to talk about “Free Speech” on Facebook? In the words of Greta Thunberg “How dare you!”, and as in the struggle against the powers that profit from the accelerated extinction of future generations, it’s time to end the Algorithmic Dictatorships and, via the real Fourth Estate and free the billions that are, as yet, unknowingly victimized, by whatever means necessary.
According to “a source knowledgeable about the probe” and quoted by Reuters and The Washington Post in stories today, more than 30 attorneys general will announce the investigation next week.
In response to the news Google issued the following statement:
“We continue to work constructively with regulators, including attorneys general, in answering questions about our business and the dynamic technology sector”
Google representative Jose Castaneda
The source also intimated that the probe would be focused “on the intersection of privacy and antitrust”, but did not give any further detail.
In July, the US Justice Department announced that it would begin a broad investigation into the possible anticompetitive practices of the largest technology companies. It has been considered likely that Google, Amazon, Facebook and possibly even Apple would be in the crosshairs.
The Federal Trade Commission, who are also responsible for the enforcement of antitrust violations, is looking into Amazon and Facebook and whether they have abused their dominance in online retail and social media, respectively.
Google, after having large fines levied against them in Europe in March for antitrust violations relating to online advertising, will now face the task of changing the outcome of similar accusations of misconduct in the US.
Amazon also has had difficulties coming out on top in European cases. Only yesterday in Paris, the Commercial Court handed down a verdict against the online giant, resulting in a 4 million euro fine and a demand that 7 key clauses in their agreement with “marketplace seller partners” be brought into compliance with French laws.
Meanwhile, Facebook is also under scrutiny as they are under investigation by the FTC for a potential breach of antitrust regulations. Similar to Google in the European case mentioned above, the probe into facebook involves its social media, digital advertising and mobile applications.
Graphic / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock
In a separate matter, Facebook is also under scrutiny by the European Commission in questions relating to its new Crypto Currency “Libra”. A more general inquiry into its possibly anticompetitive behaviors within the EU in also underway.
Overall, it appears likely that these various probes are only the beginning, as all of the massive tech companies mentioned are already the target of governments and politicians, particularly in the US and Europe.
In a peculiar twist, both Republicans and Democrats in the US seem to agree on at least one thing, that these companies are too big and too powerful and should be investigated at minimum and potentially targeted in antitrust actions for illegal behaviors.
The Trump Administration, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, even Joe Biden have come out in favor of breaking up big tech at the hands of the government, after serious violations of antitrust law have been established.
Teeth or not in Inquiry? Jawboning or action for Targeted Tech?…
Commenting on the antitrust review announced by the Justice Department on Tuesday, in an interview on CNBC, Mnuchin said that “it is good that the attorney general is going to look into this”.
Also saying that Amazon has “limited competition”, “hurt small businesses”, and that it was “absolutely right” for the Attorney General to look into “these issues”.
Amazon "has destroyed the retail industry across the United States," says Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. "It's absolutely right the Attorney General is looking into" anti-trust issues. pic.twitter.com/z5Mhc96xMa
On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced via press release that it would initiate a review to determine if major online platforms had “reduced competition, stifled innovation or otherwise harmed consumers”.
”The Department of Justice announced today that the Department’s Antitrust Division is reviewing whether and how market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.”
Department of Justice Release from Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Interestingly, the idea of some kind of antitrust action against Amazon, Google or Facebook is one that is gaining traction among Republicans and Democrats alike. Senator Elizabeth Warren in particular has often spoken of the need for intervention.
Each of the “market-leading online platforms” have built-in defenses against traditional antitrust actions, which have traditionally looked for dominant companies where consumer prices were directly impacted by use of monopoly profits (such as in United States v. AT&T and later, v. Microsoft).
In the case of Facebook and Google, profits are hidden behind “free” products and services which allow the companies to claim that no harm comes to consumers as a result of their power. Naturally, the idea that the products and services come without cost is losing credibility in light of the many scandals and instances of harm, monetary or otherwise.
Kindergarten Colors and “Consumer Obsession” while Evil Lurks Beneath…
In the case of Amazon, it is even more complex, since, as a company famous for enormous losses rather than profit, all while using various loss leader strategies to prove that it is “consumer obsessed” and not a monopoly at all.
Indeed, Amazon’s response to the Justice Department’s press release was, through a spokesman, that Amazon accounts for “less than 4% of US retail sales” and that “small and medium-sized businesses are thriving with Amazon”. Not mentioned was the dominant 50% share of the online sales market.
By comparison the second largest online sales channel, eBay, for 2019 is estimated to reach 6.1%, while Walmart’s online platform has an approximate 4.6% share.
Rarely has the media been able (or willing) to unravel the deeply complex history of Amazon’s strategies – which can be traced all the way back to the incredibly favorable pricing of it’s stock during the dot.com bubble boom and it’s “stealth” transformation from “The World’s Largest Bookstore” into “The Everything Store” over a ten year period.
The closest definition for its business behavior is as a “monopsony”, which can be defined as holding a monopoly over suppliers or labor, not consumers.
And this is where the “hurt small businesses” comes in. Any small retailer wishing to survive, let alone make a profit, must have online sales in some form (ask Walmart if you doubt that online sales are a necessary requirement for a brick and mortar retail business in 2019) and the domination in that area – that is to say the control of the customers, by Amazon is so extreme that joining the Amazon Marketplace is the only option (other than trying to survive with 90% fewer online sales).
And the Marketplace is controlled with an iron fist by Amazon. For example, since around 2006 all communication between Amazon Marketplace sellers and their buyers is handled by an encrypted, anonymous messaging system designed to prevent sellers from obtaining any direct email addresses from buyers.
This amazingly elaborate system is a glaring indicator, hiding in plain sight, that Amazon views its “selling partners” as anything but.
Although third-party sellers accounted, for example, for 50% of paid units sold on Amazon in 2016, every customer was considered to belong 100% to Amazon and zero percent to the seller.
With fees that can total up to 50% (they use a complex exponential sliding scale which makes it impossible to quote any exact figure) the seller is doomed to have no brand value and no “good will” value as long as it agrees to cooperate on the platform. Not selling on Amazon, unless extremely well capitalized (such as a start-up with hundreds of millions of dollars), is a death sentence.
Naturally, the waters remain muddy, since examples of the precise opposite can be pointed to – if you are a manufacturer and your products are extremely cheap (you are probably in China) and you like to offer your margin to Jeff Bezos as “his opportunity” and, particularly if your products will harm an Amazon competitor that refuses to sell on Amazon, the red carpet will be laid at your feet.
3 Brands Take Over Earth, Almost No-one Notices
It’s odd, as an observer, to note that there is not a single “brand success story” that can be pointed to as having built their brand through the Amazon third-party Marketplace. Could this be more than a coincidence?
”What I am glad we never did and that we’ve avoided so far is being on Amazon”
Jen Rubio, co-founder and chief brand officer of Away
Take, for example, Away Luggage, who went from being a “direct to consumer” start-up founded in 2015 to recently reaching a valuation of over one billion dollars and who made it a point NEVER to sell on Amazon;
She added that a “deal breaker” was that Amazon does not share customer data with vendors.
”Just sticking to our guns and not going on the [Amazon] platform was important for us”
Jen Rubio, Away
In our own recent interview with a long time Amazon Marketplace seller, who insisted on not being named, “or my children’s lives would be in danger”, he stated that many more behaviors towards seller “partners” are anything but collegial.
One of many examples is the “co-mingling” policy. As with much of what goes on behind the scenes at Amazon, this is an opaque, complex concept where all products that reside in any Amazon warehouse (supplied by various sellers participating in the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program) are considered to be “co-mingled” once they arrive.
When an item is purchased from a particular seller any item from any supplier is “picked” and shipped to the buyer. If that item is somehow inferior or even counterfeit, the seller whose name is on the order is automatically blamed although there is no way to trace the item’s true origin.
Our anonymous interviewee stated that, in one case, he was put out of business and even sued as having sold a counterfeit item, even though all his inventory was purchased from the original authorized manufacturer, and he could prove it.
Why didn’t he fight the false and obviously bogus accusation? $50,000 to $100,000 in Legal fees and no chance of any remedy other than, perhaps, re-instatement with no guarantee that the same thing wouldn’t happen again 2 days later.
One could get the impression, surveying the various accounts from sellers, across many walks of life, that Amazon’s perspective is not only that it is unimportant what happens to a particular seller that runs into problems on its platform, but that the demise of any seller is a “win” and that harm to any seller is harm to a competitor, even if that entity is technically a “Marketplace Partner”.
If true, this is as disturbing as any “consumer harm” effected through higher prices, as the sellers, who are also consumers let’s not forget, are just as trapped in the platform’s private “hell” as any consumer who is forced to pay higher prices as a result of monopolistic behavior.
Stories like the one above are “out-there” by the thousands but, strangely, hard to find online. A search on Google (oh yes, one of the other companies being scrutinized by the Justice Department) for “Amazon harms sellers” would often, in the recent past, bring up nothing but links to Amazon itself and how it is harmed by “counterfeit sellers” as if all the problems on the platform are created by the “other guy”.
Interestingly, even that is beginning to change, and there are more and more articles by reputable outlets such as Forbes , The Verge and INC who are daring to take information publicly gathered, as in our case, often from anonymous sources fearing retribution, and report on it without fearing similar retribution to its own organization. It seems likely more such stories will be published in the coming days and months. And perhaps, as they say, one day, the chickens will come home to roost.
Tech Titans Race to “Give” Internet to Off-The-Grid Populations Across the Globe –
Bezos, Branson, Zuckerberg, Musk, Google, Softbank, Airbus are all vying to own the sky. There are also few companies without the marquee star power in the mix.
Something must be driving the world’s wealthiest into a race against each other to be the first to provide satellite internet access to the poorest and least connected on earth.
It’s all about the Zettabytes
For one, the numbers are staggering: an estimated 4 billion “customers” are not yet connected worldwide. “Unserved” and “Underserved” are the buzzwords, with the majority residing in Africa, India, and parts of South America.
In case you’re not Zetta-aware, a Zettabyte is one trillion Gigabytes, which is the approximate total amount of yearly internet traffic as of 2016.
Expectations for 2020 are in the 2.3 Zettabyte neighborhood (2.3 trillion Gigabytes). To handle the load, provide for the unserved and get to 5G speeds (expected to be the new norm), a major change is needed.
Low Earth Orbit micro-satellite constellations are what’s next. Not to be confused with Geosynchronous, a.k.a. Geostationary, which are fraught with latency issues. Instead, a LEO mesh network constellation can potentially achieve latency at 20-30 milliseconds vs. the 700 milliseconds typical with Geosynchronous systems. Smaller, cheaper satellites that can be launched in bunches (up to 30 per launch) are all the rage.
Speed targets are above 1 Gigabits p.s. (download and upload) and, to takeover for malfunctioning units, spare satellites will be deployed. Network downtime can be reduced to less than 2 minutes per year through this method.
The idea of an ultra-fast internet beamed to the entire earth population within a decade is a mind-blowing concept.
The power in controlling such a network would also be so vast, it’s no wonder those already at the pinnacle are ready to fight each other for the privilege of setting it up. And, of course, to reap the rewards.
“…a discussion about the potentially scary thought of any of these titans owning even more of the world’s tech infrastructure will be on deck in the near future, so stay tuned”
With virtually all the planet’s heavy hitters on board, the race to supply internet worldwide via LEO micro-satellite constellations will likely be decided at the political and governmental level. As much as we’d all enjoy watching a capitalist death-match, being at the mercy of a monopoly larger than any in history? Less enjoyable.
With so much to unpack in the breakdown of who’s-who, a discussion about the potentially scary thought that any of these titans could own even more of the world’s tech infrastructure will be on deck in the near future, so stay tuned.
Microsoft’s Bill Gates and communications mogul Craig McCaw project Teledesic was an early attempt at satellite internet networks, but failed, in the late 90’s / early 00’s.
Now, however, stars appear to be aligned for at least one the the current crop of projects to succeed.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX intends to operate thousands of satellites with low orbiting efficiency. In 2018 the FCC approved a launch of 4,425 satellites (in March) and an additional 7518 (in November), bringing the total approved to 11,943. This group of satellites will comprise the initial Starlink internet constellation. A license application for 1 million earth-stations, to be used by customers, has already been submitted.
The first two Starlink satellites, Tintin A and Tintin B, were launched on February 22, 2018
In order to maintain the FCC’s conditional approval, SpaceX will have to launch at least 6,000 satellites by 2024.
Once that hurdle is crossed they could have 12,000 into space by 2025-2026.
And don’t forget Elon Musk already shot a Tesla Roadster in space via his Falcon Heavy rocket. It has twice the lift-capacity of a NASA Space-Shuttle and could be an ideal transport system for large satellite batches. The Falcon 9 would also be a good choice.
Perhaps SpaceX will get a boost since they avoided the list for possible break-up by the US government that was put forth by Senator Elizabeth Warren, AOC and others.
A betting man would think the satellite systems space race will be won by Elon Musk and SpaceX.
However, the game did appear to change recently when SpaceX’s former execs Rajeev Badyal and Mark Krebs joined Amazon’s “Project Kuiper’. (after allegedly being fired from SpaceX). Recently, in a tweet, Musk called Jeff Bezos a “copy cat” for jumping into the Satellite Internet fray. (note the emoji for the ‘cat’).
“CopyCat” Jeff Bezos has a substantial plan of his own. Project Kuiper is named after astronomer Gerard Kuiper. Kuiper was space theorist and visionary.
Some of his spot-on theories were:
Predicting that carbon dioxide would be found to be a major component to the atmosphere of Mars
That the rings of Saturn are composed of particles of ice
That the Moon’s surface would be “like crunchy snow” (well before Armstrong took his steps).
Bezos’ privately owned Blue Origin project should be a benefit in the new endeavor. Interestingly, Blue Origin is already in a separate, unrelated deal with TeleSat (see more below).
Project Kuiper is Amazon’s first attempt at housing their satellites in space to provide global broadband access. 784 satellites at 367 miles above us are planned along with 1,296 satellites at 379 miles upward and 1,156 satellites at an altitude of 391 miles
These satellites will offer the internet from Scotland through the south most tip of South America. Theoretically, this can cover 95 percent of the Earth’s population. The Earth’s population currently is around 7.7 billion people, half of which still need internet access.
Despite some recent public backlash, Amazon is still incredibly popular in the U.S. However, with so much competition from all sides, even the biggest beast may have an uphill climb.
OneWeb gets huge boost from “friends in high places”
Photo / OneWeb
OneWeb upped the ante on the non-geo stationary orbit concept (LEO), literally, with investments to date totaling $3.4 Billion , as of March.
In addition to AirBus, OneWeb is now also backed by Richard Branson, Coca-Cola and venture capital firm Softbank. Up to 5$ billion may be needed to get their 5G ready network up and running.
After inking the deal with AirBus, the first six satellites were built in France. Now, they are gearing up to continue in Florida. Oddly, the Florida facility is across the street (!) from Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin Factory.
The first six of the initial 648 were successfully launched on February 27. More Satellites are expected to be launched during the year.
Additional launches for 648 micro-satellites to operate at 750 miles in altitude are planned. The company hopes the constellation will be fully operational by 2021.
Eventually the total number of satellites could rise to 1,972 for which it has acquired priority spectrum license rights. Plans for an additional 2000 have been filed with US regulators.
Google Keeps Searching
Photo / Loon
Alphabet Inc (Google’s parent company) has Loon. Using balloons to take antennas into the stratosphere, a much larger coverage area can be reached vs. a terrestrial tower. (such as a cell tower)
In January a partnership was announced with TeleSat (also partnered recently with Blue Origins, as outlined above) to take the software systems developed for its balloons and apply them to an LEO micro-satellite constellation.
https://youtu.be/MiEZfRh-h-s
Telesat currently envisions between 292 and 512 satellites in orbit and initial commercial services are planned to commence by 2022.
In July 2018 Google announced that Loon along with Wing, both initially founded as “X moonshot projects“, would henceforth be full independent companies within the Alphabet Corporate Umbrella. In addition to the TeleSat project, Loon plans to partner with mobile carriers across the globe. An example of this is the current deal with Telekom Kenya, which Loon is helping to extend its coverage to remote areas of the country.
Facebook Pulls Out…All The Stops
Animation from Teledesic showing a complete satellite constellation with full coverage of the earth
Although perhaps founded with the best intentions, Facebook’s “FreeBasics” project somehow always appeared to involve tailoring its approach in order to serve its own interests.
After allowing only Facebook-sanctioned services and data to FreeBasics users it came with little surprise that a public backlash emerged.
In February of 2016, Free Basics was banned in India for unlawfully prioritizing certain sites over others. However, Free Basics is still up and running in over sixty countries. Facebook also still has a vast influence in Africa.
Facebook estimates that its efforts to increase internet connectivity worldwide, over 100 million new users are now online.
LeoSat: All Biz at the High End
Photo / Thales Alenia Space
Focusing on speed, full earth coverage, direct sat-to-sat optical links without the need for terrestrial stations, LeoSat is positioned to be a serious and unique entrant into the satellite wars.
Designed for large business and government customers, LeoSat already has over 1$ billion in pre-booked orders from enterprise level clients. In March, a new contract with Saudi Arabian communications firm SkyBand was announced.
Based in Washington D.C., LeoSat has set 2022 as its target date for between 78-108 satellites to reach orbit. As with some other competitors above, an initial launch of 2 satellites is planned for 2019.
Using its unique high throughput satellite system (HTS) an optical laser-based backbone will be implemented in space. The backbone will be comprised of 118 LEO satellites in an MPLS network, each with a direct laser based optical link to the others.
This will achieve a projected speed of 1.5 times current land-based fiber-optic networks at 1.6 to 5.2 Gigabits p.s., all without terrestrial touch-points in a globally interlinked constellation.
Without a hyper-famous heavy hitter, LeoSat is still not to be overlooked. More than just an a company with an Apt brand name, LeoSat has a solid list of accomplishments and a serious plan to compete in its chosen niche.
Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren recently made a point, and then proved that point with the “help” of Facebook. The Massachusetts Senator posted an ad calling for the “break up” of tech giants Facebook, Google and Amazon. The video advertisement was removed by Facebook. Their reasoning for the removal was that the ad was in breach of Facebook’s advertising and copyright policy (the Facebook logo was used in the ad). The removal was reversed by Facebook based on a stated policy of wanting to allow a “robust debate”. The ad wasn’t expensive. It was only $100, but proved in the end to make an invaluable point.
The ensuing bru-ha-ha was worth many times the original sum by bringing more attention and focus to the very issue the ad was meant to highlight:
Curious why I think FB has too much power? Let's start with their ability to shut down a debate over whether FB has too much power. Thanks for restoring my posts. But I want a social media marketplace that isn't dominated by a single censor. #BreakUpBigTechhttps://t.co/UPS6dozOxn
The Democrat Senator served as Barack Obama’s Director of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She’s also an aggressive opponent of “big banks” and unlawful practices committed by Wall Street. Warren’s argument was contextualized by antitrust law violations by Microsoft in the 90’s. Warren also explained how these laws lead to the opportunity for websites and tech companies to flourish. Yet, these (aforementioned) tech giants aren’t playing by the rules.
Opposing Monopolists: a rising trend among Democrats
Warren acknowledged the invaluable place that these companies play in our lives, during her speech at SXSW. She also affirmed that they need to be “broken up” in order to promote innovation.
“Facebook, Amazon, and Google. We all use them. But in their rise to power, they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor.
It’s time to break up these big companies so they don’t have so much power over everyone else.
Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren
The Senator isn’t the only high profile Democrat taking big tech companies to task, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a voice of opposition in the recent Amazon HQ to Queens deal.
