Why Google and Amazon Are Hypocrites (om.blog)

Amazon earlier this month responded to Google's decision to remove YouTube from all Fire TV products and the Echo Show. Google says it's taking this extreme step because of Amazon's recent delisting of new Nest products (like Nest Secure and the E Thermostat) and the company's long-running refusal to sell Chromecast or support Google Cast in any capacity. Veteran journalist Om Malik writes: This smacks of so much hypocrisy that I don't even know where to start. The two public proponents of network neutrality and anything but neutral about each other's services on each other's platforms. They can complain about the cable companies from blocking their content and charging for fast lanes. The irony isn't lost on me even a wee bit. They are locked in a battle to collect as much data about us -- what we shop, what we see, what we do online and they do so under the guise of offering us services that are amazing and wonderful. They don't talk about what they won't do with our data, instead, they bicker and distract. So to think that these purveyors of hyper-capitalism will fight for interests of consumers is not only childish, it is foolish. We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.

Comments

That's easy

[DontBeAMoran]

We as end customers need to figure out who is speaking on our behalf when it comes to the rules of the Internet.

Nobody.

Next question?

Re:That's easy

[penandpaper]

Even when we [The People] speak on our own behalf in large numbers, nobody is listening.

There is your problem. You mistake the US as a democracy and the FCC under whims of popular opinion. The government is listening to "The People" through their elected representatives in Congress and Trump. Have you ever considered that "The People" disagree and the best way to handle that disagreement is through elections which we have had (having) to decide how best the government address the concerns of "The People"? Sometimes in elections your opinion loses to the other opinion.

If the current FCC chair is so bad then Obama shouldn't have nominated him to serve in the FCC. Yes, under law he was required to nominate a republican and he was suggested by the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McTurtle (seriously looks and sounds like a turtle) but Obama didn't have to accept that recommendation and pick any other republican to fill the position.

What's the problem here and how is the government ignoring "The People"?

Re:That's easy

[Immerman]

No, I'm saying candidates interested in representing their electorate rarely get the financing necessary to run a credible campaign, and so instead everyone votes for the perceived lesser evil of the major party candidates,who clearly *don't* represent their interests except on a few hot-button topics of no interest to their corporate backers, and which they tend to remain in eternal gridlock with their opponents over - to the benefit of everyone directly involved.

And sadly, voting for the lesser evil is in fact the rational choice in this situation - it is a known weakness of first-past-the-post voting systems, and one that politicians have learned how to game extremely effectively.

Not hypocritcal

[Tepar]

A good parallel is Uber and Lyft. They both use the same infrastructure (roads). Should they be required to support each other's services? No. They're competitors. Similarly, Google and Amazon use the same infrastructure (the Internet). Net neutrality should allow them to compete on the shared infrastructure, just as others compete on their shared infrastructure.

Why would you think that in the first place?

[king neckbeard]

So to think that these purveyors of hyper-capitalism will fight for interests of consumers is not only childish, it is foolish.

Who the hell said that? Google and Amazon are acting in their own interest. On net neutrality, their interests align with ours. I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy, because the point is the same in both cases: corporations are going to serve their own interests, including when that has a detrimental effect on healthy competition. If you are trusting anyone to do anything else, you are a fool.

It's a matter of importance and magnitude

[Opportunist]

YouTube on some Amazon gadget or Amazon selling some Google toy is two kids petty bickering I can easily ignore.

Net neutrality is something that WILL affect me, no matter how hard I try to ignore it being eliminated.

This smells of a rather desperate attempt to shill, after all sensible arguments have been gone for a long, long time, so what's left is whataboutism and deflection.

Re:If they are actively blacklisting...

[admin7087]

None of this has anything to do with Net Neutrality, though, and it's important to make people aware of the fact that whoever wrote the original story has not the slightest clue about net neutrality. It's important, because the enemies of net neutrality are aggressively pushing all kinds of false narratives about it.

Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[ne7minder]

His complaint is valid and very much a concern but it is irrelevant to the companies position on net neutrality. This is an example of the behavior you should expect from the big providers one NN has been killed and it argues against killing NN but google's & amazon's opinion on NN is not germane to the subject

Re: alabama

[david_thornley]

Some of the accusations against Franken are dubious. They're of behavior far short of stalking malls for underage girls, which is what got Moore banned from some malls. Franken acknowledged and apologized. Franken called for an investigation into his activities.

There are indeed hypocrites in both parties, but Franken doesn't show that.