Slashdot Mirror
Professor Who Coined Term 'Net Neutrality' Thinks It's Time To Break Up Facebook (theverge.com)
pgmrdlm shares a report from The Verge: Best known for coining the phrase "net neutrality" and his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Wu has a new book coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they get bigger and bigger. "We live in America, which has a strong and proud tradition of breaking up companies that are too big for inefficient reasons," Wu told me on this week's Vergecast. "We need to reverse this idea that it's not an American tradition. We've broken up dozens of companies."
"I think if you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number of reasons," says Wu. And breaking up the company wouldn't be hard, he says. "What would be the harm? You'll have three competitors. It's not 'Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp and Instagram, well then the whole world's going to fall apart.' It would be like 'Okay, now you have some companies actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.'" Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law, suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major rethinking of how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant platform companies give their products away for free, and the ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that we all think seriously about the conditions that create innovation. "I think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector," says Wu.
"I think if you took a hard look at the acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, the argument that the effects of those acquisitions have been anticompetitive would be easy to prove for a number of reasons," says Wu. And breaking up the company wouldn't be hard, he says. "What would be the harm? You'll have three competitors. It's not 'Oh my god, if you get rid of WhatsApp and Instagram, well then the whole world's going to fall apart.' It would be like 'Okay, now you have some companies actually trying to offer you an alternative to Facebook.'" Breaking up Facebook (and other huge tech companies like Google and Amazon) could be simple under the current law, suggests Wu. But it could also lead to a major rethinking of how antitrust law should work in a world where the giant platform companies give their products away for free, and the ability for the government to restrict corporate power seems to be diminishing by the day. And it demands that we all think seriously about the conditions that create innovation. "I think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector," says Wu.
There's a simpler way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If they want to curate content according to their political bias, then treat them like the politically-biased media outlets they are, legally liable for the content they host, instead of platforms under "safe harbor" protections. If they want to continue to be treated like platforms, then they can keep their hands off their political opponents' speech.
Why do I bother coming here anymore?
That's the big problem: people love the convenience monopolies offer. They want one retailer, one video service, one software store, etc. It's so much more convenient to not have to think about where to go.
Ah! Back when the Republican Party was sane.
Professor Who???
If dog had a name, what would it be? And would you call it to its face?
If you were faced with dog in all hims glory
what's up precious? facebook not catering to conservatives who don't meet any of the hot chicks? that's not bias, that's natural selection. go wank to breitbart they can't get pregnant
exactly do you break up a company who offers a service for free?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Microsoft has fallen below the zone they were once in.
Corporatism != Free Market
Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform for users. The point of social platforms is to connect with everyone else. Fragmentation means people needing to belong to and check multiple platforms. Trying to force competition won't solve any user issues. However, once Facebook stops providing a compelling service, people will move on their own. The same as they gave up MySpace and the same as they rejected Google+. The market chose Facebook and will purge it when time comes.
The same with Google. There were plenty of entrenched search services when Google came to be. Users chose it because it was better. The old search services died because they didn't evolve. If Google stops being the best fit option, people will go somewhere else. They already have choices like Bing and Duck Duck Go. As the service is free, people are choosing based on functionality, not on price. Those that don't like the privacy price of Google are opting for other services. You can't just declare another search service is required and then force the public to use it so that you can claim to have multiple services with comparable market share.
If people were given a choice of all you can eat steak or beets at equal cost, odds are that the majority would choose steak. When you remove cost and scarcity, the premium option will dominate. Digital services don't have scarcity like physical products do. It's a different economy.
No one wants to be on twenty different social networks. There's plenty of room for competition but no desire for that from the consumers.
Legislate all you want, it'll still drift back to a monopoly as the majority of consumers pick one network and the rest flock there because.
why do I care about a guy whose biggest contribution to this subject is clever phrasing?
It's time for extra severe regulations.
- Up to $1,000 per person's lost data, depending on the category of data
- No mass discounts
- Chain liability. ie. company that shares data with organization that gets hacked is equally responsible.
With the risk of even the giant companies (fb, google) disappearing in one day, the industry would self-regulate way beyond GDPR.
Yeah that worked great for AT&T and Standard Oil too. Let's give it another go.
If you use the internet or consumer any other advertising reliant media, it's a must read.
Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform for users.
As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and Instagram specifically.
Your comment about the problem with fragmentation is an example of why Facebook needs to be broken up by an outside entity: they have a natural monopoly, since real competition from startups would lead to fragmentation.
I've said this before, but if the government came along and broke up the company by splitting off Facebook's front-end from its back-end, then we could have competition on the front-end without fragmentation of the userbase. This scenario can only happen through regulation though.
When did the US government last create new regulations? We just saw the Equifax scandal get white-washed. The EPA, FCC, FTC are being castrated and downsized. That leaves the SEC and the TSA.
These proprietary social networks are bad for free speech.
I have no problem with facebook, google, twitter, except that they concentrate the internet in the hands of a few large companies.
We need open platforms like HTML, TCP/IP, Email, Newsgroups, etc.
All old retrograde stuff according to the children. But there isn't one of these social networks that couldn't be made P2P or something that anyone could set up their own personal server for that interlinked with each other.
A 20 dollar raspberry pi could host the overwhelming majority of individuals on social media on a 1:1 basis. Sure, no one wants to spend 20 dollars. But that's not the point. The point is that it "could". We talk about these vast datacenters... but per capita they're nothing special.
The point is logistically they should be pretty easy to replace. The primary barriers are software that has to be built to do the job... much of which already exists in one form or another... and there is something of a branding issue.
Everyone wants to be on the biggest social network and no one wants to be on even the second largest.
This further proves the need for an open platform. An open platform could contain ALL social networks in a common frame work like web pages. And you could say "but how do we link these little islands of servers and users into a larger collective?"... anyone that knows anything and thinks about it can see the obvious. An open platform would permit user information, group information, etc to flow and bleed between the servers in much the way that someone at kickme@yahoo.com can send an email to someone at kickme@google.com.
There's no need to have all the data controlled by one company to facilitate communication.
Here someone might say "that explains direct messages but how do you have groups etc"... you have the groups set up on any of a million different hosts, invite people, and there you have it. Same way facebook etc works from the user's perspective.
With distributed hosting qualms about freedom of speech become irrelevant. It would be like losing your google email address. Sure... you might have liked that thing, but it doesn't stop you from sending emails.
And that also keeps such hosts to account because they know that you can do that... and thus it becomes largely irrelevant. The interest of biased people to effect who can and cannot speak is nullified.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Socialist-ish solutions are not ideal for solving the worlds problems. We have net neutrality because of bad policies of the past. In the 1980s cities gave cable companies monopolies. This in practice was a form of wealth redistribution. Today we suffer from having implemented said policies. By granting a company a monoply particularly in the early stages of a technology's existance you end up ensuring no competition down the road. A better solution would be competition. Unfortunately the reality is the ideal solution isn't going to be easily implimented and a socialist solution to the problem is easier for people to comphrehend.
Facebook isn't something you need. It's something you choose to utilize. I don't utilize Facebook and I know plenty of people who don't either. Some of them are technical and some of them are not. Some of them are very social animals. Have you ever tried to overthrow a government (not neccessarily violently)? Because I personally know of revolutionary leaders whom know how to make shit work scoial media wise who have abandoned facebook. You can't rationally tell me we need to break up facebook.
I don't like Facebook either but its not a monopoly, nor is it required in anyway to use the internet. Anyone could come up with the next social network thing anytime now or you can just NOT use Facebook. It isn't like an OS or a browser that is necessary for use or access to anything. Facebook or Twitter are tools of convenience and can easily be done without. If you don't like what is being said filter it out or don't use either.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
and blew it...with Microsoft. They should have been broken up just like Standard Oil. But they were not and that just created a precedent for companies like Facebook and Amazon and Google. We reap what we sow.
They're doing *much* more harm, and they're certainly uncompetitive.
Look everybody, it's APK thinking we don't know it's him!
As stated in the summary: Facebook has grown by purchasing their competitors. The summary mentions WhatsApp and Instagram specifically.
While this is true, so far they have not bought their competitors to shut them down, or to raise prices to the detriment of consumers. They are building a monopoly, but so far, it is not harmful from an economic perspective, and unfortunately I don't think anti-trust law is concerned with privacy, so the case for breaking up Facebook is not strong.
Apple would be a much juicier target, especially as they recently became the world's first trillion dollar company (with Amazon close behind). Splitting out the AppStore with the condition that Apple does not get any favorable terms compared with the general public could precipitate opening up the platform to competing App Stores or sideloading, or at least AppStore Inc being forced to lower its margin to something more palatable to keep that scenario at bay.
Considering recent news of 1 in 4 delete facebook app. What's the point of breaking it up?
"breaking up the company wouldn't be hard, he says. "What would be the harm?"" Seriously? Why don't we just break up all the companies IBM, McDonald, HP, Merck, Yum brand, Coke Cola, Walmart, GM, GE Procter & Gamble, etc? Now you have millions of competitors. This is like politician proposing increase taxes / minimum wage on business because they get all the benefit without the negative.
Look, I don't get my news from Facebook. Local, National, World. Be it political or otherwise. I don't give a shit about who they ban, and who they don't. I don't give a shit on who they censor, and who they don't. Just don't care. Face book has purchased the following which was competition. At least they didn't kill them. They own Tinder, dating. They own Instagram, another form of social media. And a couple others were mentioned in the article. My profile was not used by that company that tried to sway the election, can't remember who. I checked from a link on Washington Post. My news comes from major media sites. Washington Post, Time, CNN, USA Today, CBSNews, ABCNews, AP, Reuters, Federation of American Scientists(For CRS reports prepared by Library Of Congress). The only right leaning site I read, which is not completely pro Trump is National Review. If I can not find multiple sources, that are accepted by all. I don't believe it. I prefer links to the actual source. The ONLY information that I actually believe at first glance are statistical reports provided by various government agencies. They provide background and links. CRS reports are a gold mine, if you can find a site that does not black out areas. They are very informative. I seen a comment that people want monopolies, they don't want to look around. As much as I don't like big government, I think this is one time that it needs force people to choose. Just like labels listing ingredients on food, hazards of products. Make people choose. Do not let them get swayed by everyone use's it. Hell, for no other reason. Having few major choices brings out the hate. Enough of that shit
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
"Look over here! See? We're thinking about maybe eventually doing something someday! (Pay no attention to the massive personal data collection feast that every-single-damn-corporation and government in the entire bloody world is gorging on behind the curtain)"
WHY do people give so many shits for instabook and facegram? It's not something anybody actually needs to begin with. For fucks sake. Big tech is not "The internet"... in fact, the case has been made that these companies are big evil time eaters that provide value only to every users political and ideological enemies. (and the great american advertising succubus that keeps the 1% balls deep in our bank accounts) These companies have been enjoying a wave for a while now, but it wont last forever. This "problem" is already beginning to solve itself.
Really want to accelerate the change? Here's a few ideas that nobody seems to be floating... teach people what propaganda looks like. Start actually funding education as the critically important resource that it is. Tell people to stop trusting the media. Tell them to start verifying the information they are being given. Teach them how to fact check things themselves, instead of relying on the next channel down to do it for them. Tell people to think critically, and trust only themselves.
I bet things will start to change pretty fucking fast. Yeah, I know. Fat fucking chance of any of that.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Gaaah...this AC's posts are burning my retinas...someone please mod them out of sight.
I was thinking about various individuals' claims of what influenced the election, and it occurred to me:
If you visualize influence as balls rolling around on a bed top, the larger balls are going to have more influence (if they dedicate more money).
Russia - GDP $1 Trillion.
Amazon - Annual Revenue of about $171B
Facebook - $40B (almost 16B net)
Google - $110B (rounded up)
From reports, big tech invested $400 million in the elections while Russia less than $1 million.
It is interesting that a search on Google "How much did Russia spend on the election" immediately got converted to "How much did Russia influence the election". See the sleight of hand there? Big tech has massive bank accounts in other countries where it routes its money, so has a major incentive to spend huge amounts, because the amount they save in taxes is far larger as a result.
The politicians who are making a mountain out of the Russian $1 million are the same ones taking huge bribes (and sometimes from Russia as well - it's ironic that they get away with that while pretending that the elections are meaningful).
Apple's App Store does have direct competition. It's called the Play Store. iOS and Android compete as platforms. The App Store is just a piece of that platform.
"Fragmentation means people needing to belong to and check multiple platforms"
No, it doesn't. How many email services do you connect to? There are thousands of them and still you don't have any problem to get and send emails from/to anyother. How can this be?
Hint: the fact that things are a given way doesn't mean it must be the only possible one.
Much more satisfying.
Facebook makes its money from advertising, and it definitively doesn't have a monopoly in advertising.
Breaking up Facebook seems not really beneficial honestly but i may be missing something here. IMHO all the social platforms twitter, facebook, ... should not be in the hands of individual companies at all. Instead they should be free and open like Usenet, email, the web, DNS, ... is.
About breaking companies up. I am surprised apple is not mentioned. Their way of locking the hardware and software together should just not be. There should be a apple hw and a separate apple software company and neither should be allowed to only support the other. This would result also in significantly more competition as other manufactures would not have to beat apple in both but just one.
"I think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector..."
Monopolies exist everywhere (not just the tech sector), but what has truly killed innovation is the patent system.
When companies amass tens of thousands of patents they'll never actually use in huge patent "war chests", it only serves one purpose; to allow Greed to stifle and control innovation.
Innovation reform is pointless without patent reform. You can't throw a stick 10 feet without hitting something that is patented 746 ways, to include throwing a stick 10 feet. When the world is controlled at that level, any attempt to innovate becomes more and more pointless and frustrating.
this, fediverse already solved this problem, the only thing remaining is decentralizing the infrastructure itself and you can do that easily with holochain
This article is more informative best article i have seen
Its help you for further details click the link below
In new york digital branding agency IOITSOL is one of the best new york digital branding agency.In new york digital
branding agency IOITSOL Provide best work in new york.New york digital branding agency or company encompasses many
different skills and disciplines in the production and maintenance of the new york digital branding agency.The different
areas of application include UI design; interface design user experience design.Today in new york digital branding agency
IOITSOl is the best agency.IOITSOL is also the Most creative new york digital branding agency in the past recent years.
https://www.ioitsol.com/
I don't think it is the big tech companies that are the threat to democracy, I think it is the mindless sheeple that live and die by what happens on those platforms and those who only get their news from those platforms.
(partial sarcasm)
Perhaps we should require literacy tests again or limit voting to only land owners (those who pay property tax) or simply prohibit anyone that spends more than a certain number of hours a week on Facebook or Twitter from voting. Yep, that would even prevent the current President himself from voting.
See subject: Don't worry - the "Golden Calf" of your shekels dries up! I give folks what they want vs. your machinations, lol & THUS I always will win... & you KNOW it.
* Heck - you're PROVING IT via your EASILY NULLIFIED "Bitch Tactics 'efforts'" which I easily prove are you in seconds by posting your PUNY threats... lmao!
(You really ARE too STUPID to live... time to FIRE UP THE OVENS again & Zyklon B showers).
Ever see Dr, Strange? Keep it up, that's EXACTLY what I want "JudenMammu" - you're MY prisoner.
LASTLY Don't speak for "Everyone" JUDE - you're the HATED minority ALL THRU HISTORY only fooling YOURSELVES, lol - self deluded morons & thieves.
APK
P.S.=> Dance little Jude, dance - to MY TUNE as I see you lose all that STOLEN GOLD/SHEKELS, lol - slowly (oh, SO slowly, painfully, as your kind fell into your OWN trap of debt, lol)... apk
Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.
Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.
This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):
Jew Talmud excerpts (the book that calls Christ's mother a whore & a bastard of a roman soldier):
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen
After "ma-bell" was broken up in the 80's? Perhaps it is time to break up google, facebook, twitter etc?
TFS: It's good style to use the complete name of the subject of an article at least once. But yeah, this is Slashdot, so carry on editors.
Have gnu, will travel.
How many email services do you connect to? There are thousands of them and still you don't have any problem to get and send emails from/to anyother. How can this be?
Because email is not a social network, it is point to point. Even NNTP delivery was fragmented, though. You'd have to go to specific news servers to get access to certain hierarchies, let alone groups. Being technically able to share information doesn't guarantee that it will happen.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Facebook has grown because it offered the best social platform for users.
Hmmm. "Best" isn't defined here, not by you and not by context, other than the vague inference that because it grew it must be the best. Facebook grew because it was in the right spot at the right time, and now the "network effect" of its accumulated base is a significant barrier to entry to competition.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Facebook has grown by both natural monopoly and aquisition. Growth by natural monopoly is not prohibited by, and not fixable by, antitrust law as it currently stands. Growth by acquisition can be prohibited (Hart-Scott-Rodino), but for that very reason the government cannot simply undo previous acquisitions -- those requiring antitrust review were government pre-approved.
Your analysis assume that those startups provide real competition. Many startups fail because their business is inferior. Again, growth by natural monopoly is not prohibited by, and not fixable by, antitrust law as it currently stands. If one company becomes monstrously large because it is better than the alternatives, that's not a problem that needs to be fixed. It's when it uses that size to lever into other lines of business or impair competition by anticompetitive means that there's a problem.
No, you couldn't, because that doesn't address the antitrust problem that you've complained about. We've been through this before with the reversal of the Microsoft breakup order. Monopolizing behavior in the operating system market did not justify breaking up the company by category. You've complained about the acquisition of particular services. You could break off those services (if "you" are not the government attempting to reverse a specific pre-approval, but instead, for example, a private party) but you can't simply declare that the back-end is a separate company that must provide support services to all comers.
That back-end-to-front-end synergy was organically grown and not an antitrust violation.
They have created what is, for all intents and purposes, a, even "the", public square. Facebook is the only operation of its kind that has done so, and one that has managed to include a huge number of citizens. You can argue that they have achieved this because they are good at what they are doing, and I won't argue at all, but nonetheless, this is what they have achieved.
In this context, as they are a private entity, they throw people off, and sometimes don't even allow them in. This creates a problem with the ability of any citizen to stand in the square and either speak or otherwise interact. These people become lower class citizens by virtue of their inability to interact with others. That, IMHO, is a power that should definitely be reserved for criminal punishment imposed by a court. Not a private entity.
For this reason alone, I believe that it would be wholly appropriate to regulate away Facebook's ability to do this. I don't think breaking them up is the right answer, but I definitely think they need to be forced to keep their system open to everyone.
Email is not point to point. TO/CC/BCC all has the option to give multiple recipients. If I send an email it gets there and is displayed to the intended recipients. The irony of facebook is when someone makes a post it may not even be shown to their 'network' cause it impedes ad delivery or maybe it's not ranked as relevant. Facebook is point to "whatever facebook wants it to be"
"Being technically able to share information doesn't guarantee that it will happen."
No, of course not, reality being my guest. Conversely, that it is not happening now doesn't mean it can't happen. Which turns back to the parent poster: there's no technical limitation so that having multiple "social network" providers forceully leads to fragmentation, which means he is wrong.
Who the heck is forced to use Facebook? If you think it is the only place on the Internet, then I guess it should be broken up. But is anyone really that stupid?
If you really hate Facebook so much, start promoting alternatives like Diaspora. (a free distributed model social network). But what you'll find is that people don't want to sign up for Diaspora any more than they want to keep their Facebook account.
The fad behind the "social network" is fading away, as people are transforming how they use these services in their everyday lives. Maybe Facebook will learn to adapt to the new realities, but I really doubt it.
P.S. my favorite social network was Usenet and IRC.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
facebook, google, twitter, instagram, etc., are all free to the end user, just as tv and radio were, you just agree to get targeted ads in return. seems like a fair trade. the issue comes down to censorship of the content (and ads?), directly, or indirectly through network neutrality and the like. ethically we should level that through legislation and regulation. any solutions?
nothing to see here - move along
precisely - don't like the free service, use another, no one is forcing you
nothing to see here - move along
"Email is not point to point. TO/CC/BCC all has the option to give multiple recipients."
It's too bad you don't know how email works. When you put a bunch of recipients into an email, that same email is sent to each of the recipients in turn, with jiggered headers. And it's point to point, as a connection is made to each server, and a copy created for each recipient. And it has been always thus, although UUCP nodes used to do all communication through a single smarthost which would forward the individual messages along to the next hop.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"