Tag Archives: Google

Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare Wars Against Each Other

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock / Pink Floyd

Virtually every day a targeted feature or software change is announced in an attempt to damage the monopoly next door

Competition is the cornerstone of capitalism. Except, sometimes, when monopolies take hold. This week CEO’s of the largest tech firms will be grilled (or at least questioned) on just how each of them got so big, and why they should not be broken up or regulated, in order to improve competition in the online marketplace that is now the world’s lifeblood.

The mistake of history that allowed Google, Amazon and Facebook to emerge from the dot-com era of zero profit companies as winner-take-all trillion dollar behemoths is finally being questioned by the masses, which has led to government investigation and inquiry.

Click to See “Goliath
and to help Lynxotic
and Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

Apple was not founded during the 90s, actually produces products and does not rely on the monetization of user data as it’s main revenue generator; it does not sell below cost in a loss-leader system designed to cripple any competition and has a completely different business ethos, all of which separates the three mentioned above into a different category for this writer.

Nevertheless, in a world where giants from an earlier time are dwarfed by the sheer size and power of these 4 (Microsoft and Tesla are excluded from this article since each has its own backstory and are best looked at separately), a situation has arisen where only one giant has the power to even touch, let alone threaten, another giant.

There are many ways that these giants have always fought one another, yet as they staked out territories and empires, there seemed to be, at times, a tacit agreement that the domain of one would not be violated by another, like an unspoken mafia code or territorial claim.

Those lines between the giants are getting blurry as a silent siege is building and those previously “untouchable” areas of commerce are being targeted.

The fight may be about dollars in the end, but it is the essential control of data and user behavior that leads to all power, and therefore value and income. And each giant has staked a claim to a method or means to control and influence the behavior of billions of eyeballs and souls. Any change in that status quo is a big deal for these entrenched companies, and potentially good news for small businesses and consumers who are, without a doubt, little more than victims of the current insanely evil system.

Those lines between the giants are getting blurry as a silent siege is building and those previously “untouchable” areas of commerce are being targeted.

– D.L.

Here are a few of the new fronts where this hidden and secret battle is being fought:

Google Shopping, following Walmart, is trying to lure 3rd party sellers and sales away from Amazon

Already under fire for rigging search results to favor itself, Google is doubling down, in a sense, via drastically lowering fees for 3rd party sellers to use Google Shopping to get direct sales from Shopify or other non-Amazon sources.

Since Amazon’s fees can approach 30% for some lower cost items (such as books) this will be a powerful incentive for sellers to shift focus away from Amazon’s predatory fee structure and to a platform that potentially could bring in sales with less cost to the seller (and therefore a better end value to the buyer).

Click to See deals on Apple Products and to help Lynxotic.

Google is offering zero commission listing and, in a big announcement, also currently charging zero, in the US, for the “buy on google” checkout system. This is in the process of expanding and rolling out, and, potentially, by the fall and holiday season, could provide an interesting shift in how small business can operate online.

Walmart started allowing 3rd party sellers onto its online store several years ago but, recently, kicked that process into overdrive with a new system that allows all Shopify accounts the choice to sell on Walmart.com via a direct link between the two.

Bookshop.org, with whom Lynxotic is affiliated via our sister site Cherrybooks.org, is also a company that is attempting to break the stranglehold Amazon has had on online book sales. Surprisingly successful already, with its B Corp non-profit-like structure and alliances with independent bookstores sale have exploded. Affiliate advertising from huge media companies such as the New York Times have climbed on board and the largest book distributor in the US is a partner for fulfillment. Bookshop.Org has been able to put a tiny dent in the largest, most powerful competitor imaginable, showing, perhaps, that there are cracks emerging in the corrupt business models of these giants and they are not 100% invulnerable after all.

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/iPadOS14Safari-AppleNews2.mov
Live iPad OS 14 exampleS & Excerpt from Apple’s WWDC 2020 Presentation

Apple’s iOS 14 and iPad OS 14 (along with mac 11 OS Big Sur) will begin to break Google’s search monopoly with direct links in Safari and Spotlight

For companies wanting to bring traffic and customers to their web sites for many years there has been only one very big game available, so-called SEO. SEO stands for Search Engine Optimization which refers in the words “search” and “engine” to one that controls over 90% of search traffic: Google (91.75% as of June 2020).

So it could be called GEO or just GO for Google Optimization. And this is a massive industry in and of itself.

Click to See “Steve Jobs
and to help Lynxotic
and Independent Bookstores.
Also Available on Amazon.

Increasingly, however, this monopoly is also being challenged. Not only in Europe where massive fines against the search giant have been levied, but in the growing options for sites to be found in ways other than qualifying for a first page placement (paid for or otherwise) in Googles search results.

Soon, for the billion + apple device users worldwide, there will be a new way to find news sources and other web sites. Both search in Safari and Spotlight, which is the device level search system on iPhone, iPad and Mac computers, will soon have results that link directly to the source, bypassing google in the process.

This is a small statement but will have a huge effect in the real world. The reason is simple but mind-blowing: a search result choice not controlled by google, available on one billion plus devices, has the potential to begin to break the monopoly, and Google’s ability (and how much) to charge for the privilege of being found through its search results.

How the Apple search results are generated and what companies would be featured in those direct results is as yet unknown and may never be released (like Google’s proprietary algorithm). The emergence of ASO (Apple Search Optimization) notwithstanding, just the fact that there is a new player presenting new opportunities for news outlets and eCommerce companies to be found by Apple device owners, is very interesting news indeed.

https://video-lynxotic.akamaized.net/Safari-Privacy-BigSur.mov
EXCERPTs FROM APPLE PRESENTATION FOR privacy settings FROM WWDC 2020

Apple will expose the worst of predatory surveillance by Facebook, Amazon and Google with new privacy features

Announced at WWDC 2020, the new operating systems are coming with serious features that track, and block as desired, all manner of data intrusions. These are not only identified, but shown and tracked and analyzed with a kind of professional dashboard, showing just how invasive and persistent these invisible spies are.

…the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.

– D.L.

Tracking the trackers is a clear and aggressive privacy stance, taken by the one company among the big four, that does not have a huge stake in you being the victim of online surveillance and tracking.

Not to say that Apple is blameless. Many are complaining about its fee structure for software sold by third parties via the app stores. While this issue is certainly a valid one, the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.

Above: Photo / Bansky


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

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

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

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

New Tech and Business Stories: Bill Maher on Bezos, The Big 3’s Evil Empire and Tesla’s Big Breakthrough

Have you seen the monologue from Bill Maher on Amazon and Bezos? If not you better take a look. Can’t say if Bill is a barometer of the pulse of the public at large, but this time he seems to be spot-on. There could be a sea-change coming, even as we all reflect on the massive changes wrought this year, not only by the pandemic itself, but by the collateral damage and collateral advantage, in some cases, that came with it like a tsunami after an earthquake.

Perhaps change can be good. Tesla and Elon Musk are trying, at least, and the upcoming announcements regarding battery tech breakthroughs are like a ray of sustainable sunshine in a world of clouds and rain. Quibi appears to be struggling out of the gate (surprising no one!) but with billions in their war chest it’s likely too soon to count them out entirely. After you check out the Bill Maher video below, you might want a little deeper background on the landscape that led to Amazon’s insane dominance, so check out the extended, anonymously sourced reporting by our News Staff.

We are All Search Hostages until the Internet is Free of the Big Three:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Isn’t it funny that the so called bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 which resulted in a nearly 75% drop in the tech heavy NASDAQ index by March, 2000. Ultimately, among survivors and upstarts, the winner-takes-all saga led to no less than three trillion dollar companies. Click to see complete story.


Tesla and Elon Musk to Announce EV Breakthrough in June, details leaked to Reuters:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Tesla has proven already that a well designed and engineered EV has many superior qualities compared to an equivalent ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicle. Teslas have shown that they can last up to one million miles with far less maintenance. Click to see complete story.


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

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

A recent “study” has been cited by a gaggle of digital media outlets. Featuring headlines such as “Jeff Bezos Could Be the World’s First Trillionaire, and the Overwhelming Response Is ‘Thanks I Hate It’ (Vice.com) and“Jeff Bezos could become world’s first trillionaire, and many people aren’t happy about it” (USA Today) and trending on twitter via the hashtag #bezostrillionaire and #RIPCapitalism. Click here to see complete story.


Quibi Shifts Gears Following Rough Start :

Photo Collage / Quibi

Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman launched Quibi on April 6th. The latest project from the two well-experienced entertainment moguls, Quibi is a streaming service designed for the smallest of screens— namely, smartphones and other mobile devices. The subscription based platform’s initiative is to provide short bursts of entertainment for people on the go, keeping content between seven and ten minutes long apiece. Click to see complete story.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

Top Tech Stories this Week from Facebook, Google, Elon Musk and Amazon

With half the world seemingly at the beach, and most of us focused on the right way to survive coming out of lock-down, you may have missed the incredibly active news coming out of the tech space. Not just space itself, but a variety of interesting looks toward the future, both in law and anti-trust issues and, yes, space itself both from the fantasy as well as reality perspective.

With the coronavirus pandemic implications for the economy and business at the forefront of looming threats, at least in terms of non-medical issues, the big tech giants; Amazon, Google and Facebook are all getting warnings that the government are a-coming with serious questions as to the behavior of the former, if not outright legal actions. And the people at large, in particular small business owners may not be far behind.


A Bully with a “Nice” Promise is Still just a Bully:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Funny thing about promises made by politicians and owners of public companies. Although truth will eventually come out due to public access to accounting, these are often so far in the future that virtually anything can be promised today with no need for a specific plan or transparent numbers to back them up. Click to see complete story.


Elon Musk – Tom Cruise Space Film makes News out of Brilliant Redundancy:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

From “Star Trek” to “Star Wars,” “Interstellar” to “2001,” outer space has been the primary setting for a wide range of science fiction and action movies over the years. Still, never has a film actually been shot in the infinite frontier. Sure we have footage from the stars (even from the moon and Mars), but no feature film has been bold enough to actually construct a full-length narrative with principal photography occurring in space. Click to see complete story.


Read More: SpaceX Starship Plans for The Moon, Mars and Earth-to-Earth Transport


Facebook Acquires Giphy while Congress steps in with Antitrust Suspicions:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

On Friday, May 15th, Facebook announced that it will be buying Giphy— the world’s most popular GIF site on the internet, social media, and messaging services. Giphy is already an integrated part of iMessage, Tinder, Slack, and Twitter, and Facebook now owns it for a reported $400 million. Click to see complete story.


Google about to face Long Overdue Antitrust Charges from Department of Justice:

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

It is safe to say that Google is a hegemonic force in the digital world. The site practically has a monopoly on internet searches and it holds nearly a third of the money tied up in online advertising. Because of the United States’ lax laws regarding cyber security, Google’s dominance has largely gone unchecked over the years. That is, until now. Click to see complete story.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

We are All Search Hostages until the Internet is Free of the Big Three: How they Block Your Life

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

This is a tiny snippet from an upcoming exposé of the inner workings of the nightmare produced by Facebook, Google and Amazon

Isn’t it funny that the so called bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 which resulted in a nearly 75% drop in the tech heavy NASDAQ index by March, 2000. Ultimately, among survivors and upstarts, the winner-takes-all saga led to no less than three trillion dollar companies.

If the internet is, or at lest was, a dead end for any company trying to profit, how could these few have profited so obscenely in such a short time?

Most of the answers to that question attempted for the last two decades have been blatant hero worship and “to the victors go the spoils” nonsense with hardly any media attention paid (at least until around 2016) to the deeper, and darker, story that explains this regrettable paradox.

While the truth, particularly when it comes to tech and the internet, is often maddeningly complex, hiding behind a veil of complexity is a standard technique for anyone wants to keep their billion dollar golden geese a secret, shell companies, offshore banking, derivatives and “CDOs” and the like all benefit from being opaque and complex.

And while the absolute details would take mountains of pages to explain, mainly to explain away all the contradictions, the base issues are at the same time, in many ways, insanely simple.

Fraud, Ponzi schemes, illegal monopolistic behavior, all the usual suspects are not only present but rampant and rancid like a planet sized pile of moldy cheese.

And those are the larger threads, the ones that fit into a framework of past anti-trust cases and prior greed fueled crime sprees.

The devil as they say, is always in the details. Here are a few, some general and others much more specific, that point to how we could have gotten to this absurd destination.

Google and the “hiding engine” from hell

Click to see “Goliath
and help Lynxotic
and all independent
bookstores

While it is lovely that Google “allows” us to find out Lucille Ball’s birthday with a single click – or the capital of Afghanistan just as easily, what if you are looking for something a little less obvious? What if the information you need is worth something? What if you need fair, honest advice or even wisdom?

You’re out of luck. Since the entire basis for this business to to charge you (or somebody, regardless) for information that is, in reality, publicly available (the internet is public after all and the information on it does not belong to google), the primary function of Google’s vaunted trillion dollar algorithm is to hide any information of value from you until they have extracted a price.

Since they are known as a “search engine” this is counterintuitive but it will make more sense as we delve into the other two “winners” of the dot-com era. Each of these three companies share this one thing in common. They are all build to exclude, hide and criminally manipulate essentially public information for the benefit of a private enterprise. k?

Facebook and the lure of “exclusive membership”

As has been well documented, to the extent of having been memorialized in a feature length hollywood film, the fast start in membership that Facebook achieved was based on two “triggers” related to exclusivity and “hiding” of information. The first was, during the initial launch at harvard and for a period of time at various other colleges and universities, a requirement for membership was “proof” that you were a student in the form of an “edu” suffixed email. This added popularity to the site as those joining felt they had not only potential access to others where they went to school, but also would not be associating with non-students, or in the extreme initial example, not socializing with non-harvard people.


Click to see “World Without Mind
and help Lynxotic and
all independent bookstores

While this seems innocuous enough and a great marketing ploy, indeed it was heralded as genius by hundreds of sycophantic scribes, the next bit is where the system that exists to this day became an engine for corporate greed at the expense of virtually the entire world population.

Once you join Facebook, you are “allowed” to have contact only with “friends” that authorize you to do so. But the recommendations for “friending” those people, other than from your own laborious manual searching, are controlled by Facebooks algorithms.

This is a familiar tune. The real purpose of this structure was not to give you exclusivity or for you to benefit from the “wisdom” of the algorithm, but to block private and, in particular, business entities from coming in contact with you without first paying Facebook. In other words, using its log-in membership system and proprietary software labyrinth as a private, separate internet sphere, it was able to build the largest network of phantom tool booths the world has ever seen and now collects hundreds of billions simply because “the public” has opted-in and has no idea what an open alternative would look like or the damage that has been done by this harmless seeming “social platform”.

The real potential of networked human communications, a.k.a. the internet, is almost totally lost to history, with the surviving structure entirely based on the systems that these three giants have constructed with a view to nothing more than private, personal enrichment.

While this opinion may seem harsh, looking at the inner workings of the software and who financially benefits vs. who loses (a.k.a. everybody else) will, in time expose one of the greatest swindles ever perpetrated on the public, in this case the entire world population, or at least the population of internet users across the globe.

Amazon and the alleged layers of deceit and corruption beyond all imaginings

It is fairly common these days to hear criticism of Amazon and “worlds richest man” Bezos, which is understandable since the operation is so massive and, like any huge concern, likely to step on a few toes here and there, regardless.

Naturally there is also plenty of hero worship, particularly the insane love of “Bezonomics” and a cult of personality toward the founder and CEO for, well, stepping on the most faces of any human, other than perhaps Genghis Kahn.

Again, the real devil is in the details. It is easy to defend any criticism of the company by pointing out the “good” that it has done or continues to do and to create a “straw man” argument that the company should somehow get “credit” for those things and that they somehow offset any valid critique.

That is like saying someone who succeeded in getting elected president by bribing millions of voters should therefore be allowed to wage war or imprison anyone he likes since he has earned “credit” by doing right by those who were bribed.

There a little story, told to us by an anonymous source, who’s stories have all checked out before, that illustrates the system at work when you step onto the private property of Amazon’s web site.

Click to see “Life After Google
and help Lynxotic
and all independent bookstores

Again search is at the center of the story, as is the requirement to log in and agree to terms and conditions. This is tantamount to agreeing that you are leaving the public sphere and are agreeing to abide by the rules and be subject to the whims of the private entity on whose “sole property” you are now “standing” / shopping.

In that private world Amazon, and by extension Bezos, not only play god, they are god.

To illustrate this fact let’s say you have a 7 year-old child that loves a certain children’s character and you want to buy a book that has “pop-up” cut-outs to entertain and delight. And this exact item can be found via “search”.

Naturally, you type in the name of the book or character and perhaps add “pop-up”. What shows up in the “search” results is exactly what you are looking for. It’s the precise item and it looks exactly as you had hoped. Then you look at the price. $50. Hmmm that’s a little high you think. With a little further research you find out that the “MSRP” for this item, a.k.a. the list price is $30 which seems a bit odd.

You keep trying to search and click any link on the site that will lead you to the same item at a more reasonable price – but that is only available “used” and you will not purchase a used item for your child!

In the end you rationalize, it must be a very rare item to have such a high price, and since the Amazon search results “must be scientific” there are apparently no lower priced copies available. So you buy it.

This scenario was repeated hundreds if not thousands of times for this one product over a period of several months. And likely was repeated millions of times over a period of years across thousand, if not millions of items. So what?

The search is rigged, that’s what. How do I know? The person that related this story was the seller, in 2014, of over 1000 copies of the item at $50. He did not create this fraud, merely piggybacked on what Amazon itself had set up. Only they have control of the search results.

What’s the big deal you say, after all there were no cheaper units available so it is just “surge pricing”; supply and demand, right?

Wrong. There was, after all, another listing of the same item, expertly hidden by Amazon, where only a hacker or software expert could find it. On that listing, for those that Amazon chose not to swindle, was the exact same item for the standard, heavily discounted, price of $16 or nearly 50% off the list or MSRP. You see, the result is, regardless of who is selling the item, Amazon earns triple (triple the fees) when the price is higher, as in this example.

This is not an isolated “mistake”. Many who have experience working inside the Amazon system have seen literally thousands of similar examples all tied to this “malfunctioning” search engine.

What’s more a calculation of the possible financial benefits during the time in question amounted to nearly the entire reported net profit of the entire company. It was common knowledge that the company was reporting little or no net profit during many years, even as it remained a darling of stockholders.

And if any one would bring such a specific case to Amazon’s attention? Naturally they would blame the seller, software issues, the moon and the stars, anything but admit that they use every inch of their private real estate for one purpose and one purpose only, to maximize the amount of money that ends us in their accounts.

And many who are reading this still don’t get it. “Why not?” It’s capitalism after all! To the victor go the spoils! Hail Ceasar! Heil Hitler. It’s your internet. Not theirs.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

Google about to face Long Overdue Antitrust Charges from Department of Justice

Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Europe Leads the Way and U.S. Justice About to Arrive

It is safe to say that Google is a hegemonic force in the digital world. The site practically has a monopoly on internet searches and it holds nearly a third of the money tied up in online advertising. Because of the United States’ lax laws regarding cyber security, Google’s dominance has largely gone unchecked over the years. That is, until now.

Click to see “Life after Google” and
help Lynxotic and all independent
bookstores

According to the New York Times, the U.S. Justice Department is currently planning to hit Google with a long overdue antitrust suit. The Department hopes to get the charges out by the beginning of the summer, and although details are still under wraps, it’s likely that they will aim to hold Google and parent company Alphabet Inc. accountable for its monopolistic control of the internet.

Of course, Google does not actually “own” the internet—nobody does. Nevertheless, Google has sliced itself a disproportionately large piece of the pie. In its nebulous origins, the worldwide web was hardly created with intentions, but it started out as a place of anonymity and level playing-fields for all users. Unfortunately, in the age of ubiquitous social media, online anonymity is a thing of the past, and technological juggernauts like Google have severely skewed that long lost level playing-field ideal.

Now, more than ever, big tech must be held to account

Not only does Google’s tyranny stray from the internet’s egalitarian genesis, but it also strays from the rule of law. 1890’s Sherman Antitrust Act banned monopolies in the United States as well as trusts that hurt trade. The federal government enforced the act in 1948 to break up Hollywood’s overbearing studio system in U.S. v Paramount. It recently made an appearance in the 1990s, when the Justice Department sued Microsoft, leading to a 2001 settlement with the company.

Click to see “Goliath” and help
Lynxotic and all independent bookstores

Government entities have tried to get Google on antitrust operations before. In 2013, the Federal Trade Commission investigated the website for antitrust violations, but dropped the case after nineteen months. Quite frankly, Google possesses near-untouchable power, and as aforementioned, our federal laws regarding the internet are quite loose. Thus, even though Google clearly holds too much influence for any one company, it remains a difficult beast to pin down.

If the Justice Department does manage to win against Google this time around, it could be the start of a much needed crackdown on algorithmic dictatorship. Not just Google, but Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple have all faced criticism for their exploitation of user data and capitalism. Many believe that it is time for these companies’ unregulated dogmas to end.

Accountability is key, even for seemingly nonthreatening businesses that exist in the digital ether. The Justice Department expects that attorney generals from many states will join the them in this crackdown on Google, paving the way for a more technologically equitable future.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

Big Tech headed for a Storm of Changes once the Novel Coronavirus Fades from Center Stage

Anti-trust Actions and Consumer Frustration Building for Years Coming to a Head in Post-Pandemic World

A groundswell of dissatisfaction bordering on outrage, particularly in Europe, built to a peak by the end of 2019. Lawsuits, investigations, protests and more lay siege on the biggest of the big tech giants. Google, Facebook and Amazon were at the forefront of much of the turmoil.

Judgements, convictions and fines levied against google included a whopping $1.7 billion fine in the European Union for violating antitrust regulations involving unfair advertising practices. The E.U. had already convicted the giant search company twice for similar violations in its business practices. The total fines as of the Match 2019 judgement totaled 9.3 billion imposed by the E.U. alone. While this may be pocket change to a trillion dollar company with a virtual monopoly in search in many parts of the world, it also indicates and impacts a rising awareness of the disturbing anti-competitive behavior of the tech giant.

Click to buy “The Four” 
and at the same time help Lynxotic 
and all independent local bookstores.
 
Also on Amazon

Both Facebook and Amazon have been similarly targeted for various anti-trust violations and non-competitive behaviors and were fined accordingly. Although in some ways less targeted for traditional anti-trust violations to date, Amazon, has been increasingly scrutinized and investigated for its methods of market domination. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was quoted in a televised speech stating that “Amazon destroyed the retail industry”. Amazon’s complex structure and claim to “only” account for 5% of retail sales (and 50% of online retail) make traditional monopolistic behavior claims more difficult to prove. Antitrust experts have called the massive online company a monopsony instead, which can mean having a majority power over suppliers rather than consumers. A similar set of issues and concerns was the focus of famous antitrust battles against the A&P Grocery chain during the Great Depression with a judgement against the giant finally rendered in 1946.

Also recently, the Wall Street Journal published a disturbing story detailing how sellers on Amazon were able to sell products sourced from dumpsters, clean them up and pass off as new. This was a tip-of-the-iceberg moment opening up inquiries into the state of the “3rd party marketplace” which represents more than 50% of Amazon’s revenue.

Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University

After the Pandemic Troubles Likely to Remain for Tech Behemoths

Now, as of the date of this writing the confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. total over five hundred thousand cases with over one hundred thousand deaths worldwide. The U.S. death toll, at over 2.3k , has surpassed every other country, including China (although the numbers coming out of China may not be reliable). The number of cases and the death toll has not yet peaked, according to experts, and Lock-downs across the country are likely to continue for weeks, even months longer.

Click to buy “World Without Mind” 
and at the same time help Lynxotic 
and all independent local bookstores.
 
Also on Amazon

Although this situation effectively postpones government investigations and county actions against the giants, public anger and frustration, particularly with Amazon appears to be on the rise. Low paid warehouse workers for Amazon have staged walk outs and protests, delivery times have lengthened dramatically, the newly launched Amazon branded delivery system was cancelled and overall chaos appears on the rise.

None of these or any other side-effects of the pandemic and the lock-downs, such an an increase in streaming and online use in general is likely to be a positive public relations win for any of these massive companies. The trend of the last several years is likely to not only continue but intensify as the world slowly emerges from a state of quarantine shock and gradually tries to find a path to a new business as usual.

Meanwhile, enough time has elapsed that not only articles but books about the Big-Tech backlash and the problems that have been clearly identified in the business models of these companies have been published. Many are zeroing in on the negative impact of these enormous companies on society, the job market and small businesses in particular as they snowball into larger and more dominating versions of themselves .

We have featured a few on this page but they are being published literally as I write this article, and we will continue to catalog and update the subject on our sister site Cherrybooks.


Read more: World Reading Marathon Underway- Streaming and Binge-watching still huge but Books are Next

Find books on Big TechSustainable Energy, Esoteric Spirituality and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

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

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

Facebook Sued by IRS over $9 Billion in Unpaid Taxes for Undervaluing Irish Subsidiary

Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Like Al Capone alleging an alternate Crime as a quicker way to Prosecute Social Media Gangster?

Facebook is in hot water once again; this time with the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS filed a lawsuit against the social network company for undervaluing a property it sold to an Irish subsidiary in 2010. The suit went to court in San Francisco on February 18th and Facebook expects that it will last three to four weeks.

If Facebook loses the suit, then the company will owe the IRS up to $9 billion in unpaid taxes plus interest and penalties. Facebook, however, refuses to plead guilty, claiming that its estimates were accurate when proposed, as the company was yet to receive immense ad revenue or reach wide international appeal in 2010.

Click to buy “Facebook: The Inside Story” and at the same time help Lynxotic and All Independent Local Bookstores

Just to clarify, what Facebook “sold” to Ireland in 2010 was not exactly a proper sale. Essentially, it was the original “American” Facebook outsourcing itself to its “Irish” Facebook subordinate. Such is not an uncommon practice for global businesses, especially in tech, for Ireland has very low corporate tax rates and thus is an easy place for companies to pocket extra billions of dollars in royalties every year.

While perhaps ethically shady, all of this is indeed legal for an American enterprise. It is but a sneaky loophole that Facebook is certainly not the first or last to take advantage of. According to the IRS, though, Facebook undersold itself to Ireland and thus ends up with a tax evasion charge.

Although a Pittance for the Giant Company there appears to be a Growing Pattern of Problems at Facebook

This is not the first time that a tech company has been caught red-handed getting criminally avaricious with this loophole. The European Union charged Apple Inc over $15 billion for receiving illegal Irish tax benefits in 2016. Similarly, just last year Google paid $1 billion after a French investigation dug into its international tax record. Google announced at the end of 2019 that it would stop abusing Ireland and the Netherlands for their tax incentives.

The trial is ongoing, and will see statements from Facebook executives such as hardware chief Andrew Bodsworth and Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer amongst others. CEO Mark Zuckerberg will likely not be called to the stand this time around. His legal testimonies will probably remain before Congress, wrapped in the realms of international espionage and data rights rather than dry taxation discrepancies. After all, to a company like Facebook or a guy like Zuck, what is $9 billion but a temporary fluctuation?


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin Step Down, Displacing Accountability To Sundar Pichai

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google and respective President and CEO of its parent company Alphabet Inc, have officially announced plans to step down from their high-ranking management roles in the tech world. Page and Brin created the Google search engine in 1998 when they were PhD students at Stanford University. Since then, the two have expanded the company into a multi-purpose technological empire. 

Now, twenty-one years later, the forty-six year old entrepreneurs are resigning from their leading positions at Google. However, given the stress that Google is under, they are retiring at a suspiciously convenient time. And even though they are sacrificing their titles, they are simultaneously managing to maintain stakes in the Google brand.

Taking over for Page and Brin is Pichai Sundararajan—better known as Sundar Pichai, the former number-two at Google who has practically been acting as the face of the company for the past few years. As the two founders have found themselves more invested in Google’s experimental sectors recently—Brin focusing on GoogleX’s driverless cars and Google Glasses while Page has shifted his attention towards flying automobiles—most of the Google’s more widely-used properties have fallen under Pichai’s supervision.

Pichai has been with Google since 2004. He is responsible for convincing the company to start its own browser in 2008, which lead to the immensely successful Google Chrome. In 2013, he took over the Android Division, better integrating Google properties into the line of smartphones without sacrificing their affordability. He also spearheaded the development of Chrome OS, the operating system that fuels Google’s popular Chromebook laptops.

Indeed, Pichai is an obvious choice to replace Page and Brin as CEO of Google and Alphabet. The man has practically been running the company’s mainstream innovations for the past ten years, while its founders take the backseat to play out their billion dollar tech fantasies. 

Then again, Page and Brin are far from exiled from the Google community. Although they are no longer acting leaders, they will still keep their fourteen percent stakes in the company’s finances. As majority stockholders, they will also retain influence over Alphabet’s decisions. Thus, Page and Brin’s step down from power is hardly a step down at all, but rather an excuse to hold onto control while dodging personal accountability in trying times.

And trying times these are indeed for Google. Within the past year especially, Congress and other authorities have been cracking down on tech conglomerates such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and of course, Google. Like its fellow cyber juggernauts, Alphabet has been criticized for having a monopoly on data. Not only are users starting to think that Google wields too much power, but they also fear what it is doing with such power, as the worldwide company becomes oddly elusive when questioned about its privacy standards, information distribution, and business ethics.

Even Marc Zuckerberg had the slightest integrity to come before Congress and speak for Facebook during the Senate Committee hearing on big tech last year. Page and Brin, however, were nowhere to be found. Despite being requested at the hearing, they left a conspicuously empty seat in Washington DC with Google’s name on it.

Ever since cyber ethics and big tech have become hot topics in the media, the founders of Google have been moving further and further away from the spotlight. Their resignation from Alphabet as a whole signifies their ultimate fall into the shadows, where no one can accuse them of immorality or illegality on behalf of the company. The burden will now fall on Pichai.

In a way, little has changed. Pichai has more or less been answering for Page and Brin for a while, handling publicity and leading all of the launches that come from Google. Now, however, he holds the actual crown—even if Page and Brin are keeping the royal treasure. With any luck, though, maybe Pichai will improve Google, not just by creating more innovative software, but by bettering Alphabet’s approach to security, designing tech with human decency in mind, and actually owning up and responding to some of the company’s mistakes as they come.

It’s unlikely and perhaps foolishly optimistic, but it’s a silver lining that users can grasp onto given the (albeit somewhat empty) change in Google’s leadership.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Algorithms in Your Life: YouTube Claims it Pulled Bogus Propaganda but Google Algo not Designed for that

A Story that’s Getting Old, Lies and Deception are Flooding All Outlets on Precipice of 2020 Election Year

Over the past few months, false videos on YouTube posing as established American news outlets have garnered millions of views. Selling themselves as CNN or Fox News, these fake accounts present inflammatory and fabricated content to their viewers, effectively deceiving the American public by spreading misinformation.

The Google-owned YouTube says they have taken down as many of these videos as it can, but companies such as CNN insist that the website needs to do more to proactively inhibit such activity. After all, the source of the problem is rooted deep within the very fiber that keeps YouTube (and the current monopolized Internet as a whole) running.

What is really going on in the YouTube case is an exploitation of two fundamental aspects of the Internet. Namely, these fake accounts are taking advantage of the web’s free ranging platform, and they are manipulating the data-based algorithms that keep the Internet efficiently feeding billions in ad revenue to the platforms like, google search, YouTube, Facebook and Amazon.

The web’s “free” policy refers to the fact that anyone can post anything on the Internet, although “free” in this case is a deceiving concept. Long before the Internet was a global phenomenon, the system was built upon a somewhat libertarian foundation where all users had equal access and unrestricted contribution power to information. The potential fault in this model, however, is that there is little accountability or security. As we are seeing today, with so much unchecked info, lying becomes easy and the line between true and false greys.

Algorithms are the Gatekeepers, Automation for Advertising Dollars

As for the algorithms, websites like YouTube, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and so on, depend on formulas that learn more about you the more you use them. A term that is gradually beginning to become more important but not yet fully understood, an algorithm is a set of instructions, managed by Artificial Intelligence.

The key point is that the companies mentioned above maintain total secrecy as to the settings of the algorithm, however, by viewing the public results it is clear that in all cases the algorithm is programmed to benefit advertisers, and thereby increase profits for the companies.

As per wikipedia:

“In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation. Algorithms are unambiguous specifications for performing calculation, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.”

This is how YouTube recommends videos for you, Facebook shows you suggested posts, Amazon advertises things that fit your taste, and Google can anticipate your searches before you even type anything in. It is based mostly off of your previous use—your activity provides data that these tech companies manipulate, own and sell (which you unwittingly agreed to by clicking the ubiquitous “terms of service” agreement).

However, as the access to Internet platforms, and therefore the ability to interact with others, has become a virtual monopoly controlled by the platforms, the ethics surrounding data rights and algorithms have become less clear.

Most Internet users have allowed access to their personal information in some way or another. Through “free” email accounts, social media, messages, pictures, purchases, and so on, your entire identity is encrypted somewhere in the cybernetic ether, and you have little control over it.

The consequences of this go beyond just getting offered offensive videos or unsolicited ads. The companies that made the bogus CNN accounts, for example, cleverly played YouTube’s algorithms so you would be redirected there after watching legitimate news stories. Because the majority of people consume news through their computers, fake news and real news have become increasingly difficult to distinguish.

More and More Political Manipulators are Gaming the Algos

Moreover, these misleading accounts are not always coming from Internet trolls. Some of them are run by malicious enterprises or foreign governments trying to influence geopolitical processes. Such was the case behind the now well known, infamous case of Cambridge Analytica’s interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Cambridge Analytica—a British political consulting firm—marketed for the Trump campaign using people’s Facebook data. At the height of the campaign, the company allegedly consulted with Russian officials to assist in Trump’s eventual election.

Due to the algorithmic control of websites like Facebook, once Cambridge Analytica had information on a single user, it was able to acquire information on every person that that single user ever interacted with online. Via just a handful of connections, the company was able to quickly collect data on nearly the entire nation. Thus, even if you avoided all of Cambridge Analytica’s tricks, you could still be targeted through just a few degrees of separation.

There is really no way of knowing who Facebook is sharing your data with or how they are using it. In fact, you don’t even know what your own data is, as most websites bar their users from accessing the very information that they provide. The only way to find out how you are being targeted is by consuming the suggested version of yourself that these tech companies feed back to you.

The situation is certainly eerie on a personal level, but it also transcends the individual to impact phenomena on a far greater scale. With the Trump administration as evidence, Cambridge Analytica’s approach obviously worked in some capacity. Likewise, businesses and organizations can manipulate data to promote their version of the world. Through the unrestricted world of the Internet, powerful users can alter history, conflate truths, and shape the American psyche into thinking whatever they deem real.

Certain sectors of the government have been working to try and fix this problem. Mark Zuckerberg has gone before Congress to answer for Facebook’s place in the Cambridge Analytica case. Likewise, the California Consumer Privacy Act will take effect on January 1st, giving people greater personal data rights in the Golden State.

Don’t expect the companies mentioned above, having a combined market value of more than $3 trillion, to cooperate or rein in this problem voluntarily. This algorithmic dictatorship benefits criminals like those that were behind the Trump election meddling, but most of all the system benefits the platforms themselves, at a level that is mind-bogglingly obscene. This system will change only when they are broken up or gone.

Data is the most profitable resource on the planet (recently topping oil), and it is because of our data inputs that Google and Facebook, among others, remain “free” websites. The real price for online “services” like search and social platforms is very high indeed and users are getting scammed out of more than they may realize.

Ultimately, like in politics and life itself, it is the masses, the users themselves in this case, that can decide if they want an algorithmic dictatorship, or if it is time to sweep away the current dysfunctional system and replace it with one where the price is not so steep.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

The iPhone 12 could see a Serious Sales Boom for Apple due to 5G and Starlink Internet

https://www.apple.com/105/media/us/iphone-11-pro/2019/3bd902e4-0752-4ac1-95f8-6225c32aec6d/films/product/iphone-11-pro-product-tpl-cc-us-2019_1920x1080h.mp4

Rumors Already Predicting big things for the iPhone 12: 5G plus Starlink will only Add to the Furor…

Seems like just yesterday that Apple Inc. released the iPhone 11 and 11 Pro. Consumers are still riding high on the hype and performance of these latest smartphone models. Nevertheless, Apple is already looking to the future and creating estimates for the iPhone 12 in 2020. According to Digitimes, Apple expects that the iPhone 12 will be one of the company’s most successful models.

While the 11 and 11 Pro are expected to have sold 80 million units by the end of 2019, Apple predicts that they will receive over 100 million orders for the 12 next year. 

Apple anticipates such high figures for the iPhone 12 in part due to oncoming innovations in 5G and satellite Internet. While the software and hardware details of the new phone remain shrouded in mystery for now, there is high confidence that the device will be built for the latest advances in Internet speed and 5G networking—a powerful upgrade that is bound to bring in many customers. 

Right now, the term “satellite Internet” may seem like something slow, old-fashioned, and used only by people living in remote locations where traditional broadband sources are unavailable. This may be the case at the moment, but new technology known as “Low Earth Orbit” micro-satellites could bring satellite Internet access with fiber optic speeds and beyond. Constellations of these micro-satellites could not only deliver the internet to more people around the world, they could potentially reinvent satellite Internet as a high-speed and perhaps even premiere way for virtually all people to get online.

Many tech companies have been trying to perfect micro-satellites and get the upper hand and dominate the skies. Leading the charge is Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which intends to cover the stratosphere with thousands of low-orbit satellites through its StarLink initiative. The company has already gotten approval by the FCC to launch several thousand micro-satellites into the sky, and they intend to keep launching more until they have a massive interconnected network of satellites orbiting the globe.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson & OneWeb, Google, and Facebook are all playing competitive catch up with SpaceX on the micro-satellite front. Jeff Bezos has been pursuing Project Kuiper, a satellite-oriented task which aims to provide worldwide broadband access via space. While certainly not as far along as StarLink, Kuiper plans to have hundreds of satellites in the sky in the near future.

Google has an alternative route to Low Earth Orbit micro-satellites, relying on weather balloons with antennas to stand in for cell towers and provide service to greater areas—an initiative that the company has coined “Loon.” Simultaneously, Facebook tried to make headway with its “FreeBasics” project, whereby the social network also wants to get more people active and connected on the web, and, of course, logged into its Social Network. 

5G Speeds will be the Big Upgrade but the extended Competition and Coverage of Satellites are Next

After purchasing Intel’s 5G modem unit earlier this year, and with 5G modems by Qualcom already widely expected to be in the iPhone 12, Apple is uniquely positioned to be at the forefront of this looming expansion of mobile data networks and satellite internet access points.

It’s important to remember that 5G and satellite internet both have the potential to be much faster than current broadband connections. However, the roll out timing is uncertain and the speed increases will depend on various systems and stages of network build as well as many other factors. For example, an ultra fast satellite system is being built by LeoSat which will be used by Enterprise level customers at up 5.2 Gigabits, close to double the speed of fiber, but this will be exclusively business users, at least initially.

It is the sheer breath of competition and the wide array of systems in the mix that insures that there will be more options, and more speed coming online by 2021. Not only for mobile phones but for mobile laptops and as wireless home and business routing systems also.

What all this means, in a nutshell, for Apple, is that more people will want to buy smartphones that are capable of accessing these newer, faster internet providers. If StarLink (or any of the other upcoming satellite services) can provide a greater fraction of the world with Internet access, more people will desire the latest devices to make full use that Internet. Likewise, these consumers will also want the device that is most compatible with 5G and micro-satellite technology.

Given Apple’s record, the company will probably release the iPhone 12 in September, 2020. 5G will already be in an ongoing build-out phase, with T-mobil launching on December 6, 2019 and Verizon, AT&T and Sprint already in the mix. StarLink will likely not be up and ready by that time—they are aiming for an initial roll out to start as early as mid 2020 and with continuous expansion to 2022 and beyond. However, the project will certainly be further along in becoming a worldwide sensation, with launches of multiple satellites happening every few months.

With 5G speed, and an Operating System fit for the latest forms access in its arsenal, and with the fastest chips and most powerful software and systems to accommodate the added bandwidth, the iPhone 12 has the potential to be a blockbuster of historic proportions, even by Apple’s high standards.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Amnesty International Calls Out Google and Facebook for Lack of Cyber-Security And Invasion of Privacy

Consensus Building Rapidly Against the Business Models of Internet Giants

Earlier this week, Amnesty International, a non-governmental organization from the UK, called Google and Facebook’s practices of omnipresent surveillance on people around the world an “assault on privacy.” The organization, which focuses on human rights, recently released a report outlining how these two major tech companies hold too much power and should change their business models to stop infringing on users’ personal information. 

Amnesty International’s accusations may seem extreme, but that does not mean that they are inaccurate. While Google and Facebook might appear to be free websites, the reality is that you pay for their services with your data. Whenever you search for something, you feed the sites information—information that they can sell, manipulate, market, or use for a countless number of other things, some of them perhaps unethical.

The upside is that data is cheap, and therefore these websites are not about to start charging you. The downside, however, is that there are really no limits to how tech juggernauts like Google or Facebook (or Apple, or Amazon, or Microsoft for that matter) use the data you provide them. No concrete laws in the United States monitor these companies’ use of data, and given that the Internet was built as a place of free-flowing information, there are no internal boundaries that stop these websites from taking full, unrestricted advantage of your information.

This is not the first time that Facebook and Google have been called out for issues regarding privacy and cyber-ethics. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has found himself before Congress on more than one occasion recently. Ever since it became known that Cambridge Analytica used web data to falsely advertise on Facebook during the 2016 elections, the social network’s surveillance tactics have been in question.  

Benign Monarchs? Not Likely.

As for Google, the website practically has a monopoly on web-searches across the world. The search engine accounts for 90% of the Internet searches on Earth, and it is not always transparent about what it does with the resulting data. With such huge numbers, though, Google can afford to distribute your extensive information to just about anyone—even government organizations or institutions with malintent.

The two companies usually respond to these kinds of accusations with vague optimism about current and future cyber-safety. Google claims to have changed its model within the last year, making the site more user-friendly and giving its patrons more control. Meanwhile, Facebook has largely stood its ground when it comes to online freedom. Zuckerberg and other Facebook officials have suggested that they will heighten security, but they simultaneously stand by that censorship on any scale is constrictive and antithetical to the website’s intent.

Facebook also owns Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, and several other websites/apps that are used across borders, making the issue a conglomerate and worldly one. Although they are both American companies by origin, both Facebook and Google are international entities. Thus, creating laws around their practices is a complicated and culturally sensitive process.

At the same time, though, these enterprises have been going unchecked and unchallenged for well over a decade now. When they started, the digital world was much smaller and very different than it is now. Technology has changed, and so has the world— now the rules that govern it must follow suit.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Zuckerberg claims Facebook is the ‘5th Estate’ while in Reality he runs Algorithmic Dictatorship

Collage / Lynxotic

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.

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”.

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.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

Attorneys General Initiate Antitrust Probe against Google: 30+ States will announce on September 9

Graphic / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

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.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

In Understatement of the Century, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says Amazon “destroyed the retail industry”

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”.

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

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.

Read More: A Bully with a “Nice” Promise is Still just a Bully: Big tech Behemoth Plays Coronavirus Card

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.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Google and Airbus are all vying to own the sky

Photo / Adobe Stock

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.

Read More: SpaceX Starship Aims for Suborbital Test Flight as Early as March

Meet LEO (no, not Dicaprio)

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.

Read More: Big Tech headed for a Storm of Changes once the Novel Coronavirus Fades from Center Stage

SpaceX and “StarLink”

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’).

Planet Amazon

“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.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

Warren’s Facebook Ad Calling For Breakup Is Removed, Then Restored

Egg On Face Of Facebook, Again.

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:

Read More: Facebook Acquires Giphy while Congress steps in with Antitrust Suspicions

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.

Read More: Big Tech headed for a Storm of Changes once the Novel Coronavirus Fades from Center Stage


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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

E.U. Slaps Google with $1.7 Billion Fine

Antitrust Violations Pile Up Against Big Tech

Google was fined 1.7 billion dollars (1.5 Billion Euros) for online advertising antitrust violations. This is the third fine from European authorities since 2017. The fines, along with those against other big tech firms, have established the European Union as the most consequential oversight body in policing internet tech firms that are seen as having too much power.

Europe is a leader in taking a stronger approach to reigning in firms such as Amazon, Facebook and Google (Alphabet). A broad consensus holds that these huge tech behemoths represent a danger to fair competition.

“Google has cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anticompetitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites, this is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules.”

Margrethe Vestager, Europe’s top antitrust watchdog

 A variety of infractions have been committed by Google in the past couple years. They were fined for misusing their Android ownership to undercut rivals. Google was also fined for attaching an increased amount of text ads to third party companies who used the Google search bar.

The internet search leader bundled its ad platform within the third party custom search engines. This practice undercut Microsoft, Yahoo, and other digital advertising companies.

European authorities have been more aggressive with tech companies, demanding improved privacy, transparency, and even copyright regulations. Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has fined Google over 3 billion dollars since 2017. Alphabet/Google owes a total of 8.2 Euros (9.3 billion dollars). Google hasn’t paid the fines yet, and plans to appeal. Google stock is up 17 percent in 2019.

In the U.S., Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democratic candidate for President in 2020 said that Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple should be broken up due to various antitrust issues.


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

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

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