Slashdot Mirror
Regulate Facebook Like AIM (vice.com)
New submitter gooddogsgotoheaven shares a report from Motherboard arguing why the U.S. government should regulate Facebook like AIM: Sixteen years ago, the FCC approved a merger between American Online and Time Warner, but with several conditions. As part of the deal, AOL was required to make its web portal compatible with other chat apps. The government stopped AOL from building a closed system where everyone had to use AIM, meaning it had to adopt interoperability -- the ability to be compatible with other computer systems. The FCC required AOL to be compatible with at least one instant messaging rival immediately after the merger went through. Within six months, the FCC required AOL to make its portal compatible with at least two other rivals, or face penalties. The FCC's decision changed how we communicate with each other on the internet. By forcing AIM to make room for competition, a range of messaging apps and services, as well as social networks emerged. Instead of being limited to AIM, people who used AOL's portal could choose other platforms.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
What kind of free market operates by force?
People use the term "free market" to mean two different things:
1. A market that is open to competition, where anyone can buy, and anyone can sell, all with equal access.
2. A market free from regulation.
These two things are nearly opposites. The GPP is referring to #1. You are referring to #2. Hence the confusion.
It is best to avoid the term "free market" and instead say "competitive market" or "unregulated market" depending on what you mean, unless, of course, you intend to obfuscate.
1. A market that is open to competition, where anyone can buy, and anyone can sell, all with equal access.
2. A market free from regulation.
That's the same damn definition.
Not at all. An unregulated market often will result in anticompetitive price fixing, cartels, fraud, and protection rackets.
The problem was the opposite. Remember that only NT could run OS/2 programs, and only 16 bit text programs out of the box.
The problem was that OS/2 ran Win3.x programs as well or better then MS Win 3.1, so developers targeted Win 3.x so their programs would run on both OS/2 and MS Windows. OS/2 ended up with a lack of native programs, combined with MS breaking the WinOS2 support often enough that MS Windows was a better choice.
There was also the problem that OS/2 needed more memory at a time when memory was very expensive.
Written on a computer running the latest OS/2 (ArcaOS).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism