You make an interesting point about MBA students; I was actually trying to go back to school for an MBA and sat in on a class back in February which literally was a student simulation of being on the board of Uber; they were being taught to concoct strategies to evade regulations before my very eyes. I feel most MBA students I've met are blinded by the idea that they can be part of a big brand and live a lucrative silicon valley lifestyle. They have no critical lens with which to view the lopsided power dynamic as dangerous. Needless to say, I withdrew my application because I am ready to provide that critical lens for them instead of embracing their blind careerism.
So you only praise the performance of Cicilline, Jayapal and Neguse, and ignore Steube, Jordan, or Armstrong? Sorry, Matt, but like almost all commentators on left or right, you’re little more than a partisan hack.
One of the most pathetic moments of the whole hearing was Scanlon calling Big Tech’s well-documented attempts to influence elections “a fringe conspiracy theory”. Jordan got righteously angry about it, and Cicilline’s came across as a clown reacting with “wear a mask!”. Cicilline’s demand that FB steps down further on freedom of speech under the disguise of fighting such “conspiracy theories” was equally pathetic; it is one of the demands that is likely to get granted.
And inasmuch as I see, Jordan was the only rep addressing the role of Big Tech in fostering cancel culture. Why Twitter and Microsoft were not even there?!
We all know that this hearing will change absolutely nothing. Those four companies comprise a massive % of our GDP--and no one right or left is going to subterfuge that. These hearings are pure theatre. I admire your coverage, but frankly speaking, I wrote about all of this as early as 2014. Tech-paternalism is a real problem, and politicians are going to be the last people to do anything about it. First, one of them to donate to Joe's candidacy is going to get a hall pass, followed by the rest. Mark my words.
after reading more of your articles Matt, you need write of more background concerning public subsidizing of many of these goliaths, as well write concerning the frequency in ecology destruction involved with product production for such companies / frequent lacking of producers concerning fair-trade / employee / human welfare. Granted since both democrats and republicans largely have been extremely ramming the US market into these circumstances since before Clintons' friends and offspring, there's so much more than the "economics" and "legal" histories to report on
Hi Matt, I've enjoyed reading your analysis for some time now. Regarding Google, one topic that didn't come up in the hearing is how Google uses metadata to harvest information to populate its walled garden. In fact, Google has shaped the process in the W3C standards that encourage publishers to volunteer information while making it difficult for others to use the information. This is not a topic I've seen antitrust experts discuss. I've written about this dynamic, if you are interested: https://storyneedle.com/time-to-end-googles-domination-of-schema-org/
Hey Matt, big fan of your work, you're one of the few people I bother to keep up with on Twitter anymore. I had kind of a random question so forgive me for going off the topic of Big Tech - have you ever written much on what role (if any) private equity or Wall St plays in the affordable housing crisis in virtually every major US city these days - LA, San Francisco, NYC, DC, etc.? The stock answer is that high costs of housing is do NIMBY-ism and lots of incoherent bureaucratic red tape from local governments, preventing real estate developers from building more affordable units. Amerca's poor real estate developers are left with no choice but to build low-volume, high-cost luxury condos in our great cities if they want to turn a profit and keep their families from starving.
If I've learned anything from following you it's that for virtually every kind of distortion in the economy that erodes Americans' quality of life, PE and Wall St are the ultimate culprits. I am curious if you have more fleshed out pieces on this specific topic.
Thanks, Matt. Google is clearly anti-competitive on its face. Politicians on all sides are owned by Google. Without Google support, no one can overcome the disadvantage of their opposition.
You make an interesting point about MBA students; I was actually trying to go back to school for an MBA and sat in on a class back in February which literally was a student simulation of being on the board of Uber; they were being taught to concoct strategies to evade regulations before my very eyes. I feel most MBA students I've met are blinded by the idea that they can be part of a big brand and live a lucrative silicon valley lifestyle. They have no critical lens with which to view the lopsided power dynamic as dangerous. Needless to say, I withdrew my application because I am ready to provide that critical lens for them instead of embracing their blind careerism.
So you only praise the performance of Cicilline, Jayapal and Neguse, and ignore Steube, Jordan, or Armstrong? Sorry, Matt, but like almost all commentators on left or right, you’re little more than a partisan hack.
One of the most pathetic moments of the whole hearing was Scanlon calling Big Tech’s well-documented attempts to influence elections “a fringe conspiracy theory”. Jordan got righteously angry about it, and Cicilline’s came across as a clown reacting with “wear a mask!”. Cicilline’s demand that FB steps down further on freedom of speech under the disguise of fighting such “conspiracy theories” was equally pathetic; it is one of the demands that is likely to get granted.
And inasmuch as I see, Jordan was the only rep addressing the role of Big Tech in fostering cancel culture. Why Twitter and Microsoft were not even there?!
We all know that this hearing will change absolutely nothing. Those four companies comprise a massive % of our GDP--and no one right or left is going to subterfuge that. These hearings are pure theatre. I admire your coverage, but frankly speaking, I wrote about all of this as early as 2014. Tech-paternalism is a real problem, and politicians are going to be the last people to do anything about it. First, one of them to donate to Joe's candidacy is going to get a hall pass, followed by the rest. Mark my words.
after reading more of your articles Matt, you need write of more background concerning public subsidizing of many of these goliaths, as well write concerning the frequency in ecology destruction involved with product production for such companies / frequent lacking of producers concerning fair-trade / employee / human welfare. Granted since both democrats and republicans largely have been extremely ramming the US market into these circumstances since before Clintons' friends and offspring, there's so much more than the "economics" and "legal" histories to report on
Hi Matt, in the UK google and facebook are also under way more scrutiny.
Have a look at :
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/01/ministers-urged-to-limit-facebook-and-google-power-over-uk-ad-market
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-platforms-and-digital-advertising-market-study
This is a large study with a lot of Appendixes as well as public reactions.
Hi Matt, I've enjoyed reading your analysis for some time now. Regarding Google, one topic that didn't come up in the hearing is how Google uses metadata to harvest information to populate its walled garden. In fact, Google has shaped the process in the W3C standards that encourage publishers to volunteer information while making it difficult for others to use the information. This is not a topic I've seen antitrust experts discuss. I've written about this dynamic, if you are interested: https://storyneedle.com/time-to-end-googles-domination-of-schema-org/
Hey Matt, big fan of your work, you're one of the few people I bother to keep up with on Twitter anymore. I had kind of a random question so forgive me for going off the topic of Big Tech - have you ever written much on what role (if any) private equity or Wall St plays in the affordable housing crisis in virtually every major US city these days - LA, San Francisco, NYC, DC, etc.? The stock answer is that high costs of housing is do NIMBY-ism and lots of incoherent bureaucratic red tape from local governments, preventing real estate developers from building more affordable units. Amerca's poor real estate developers are left with no choice but to build low-volume, high-cost luxury condos in our great cities if they want to turn a profit and keep their families from starving.
If I've learned anything from following you it's that for virtually every kind of distortion in the economy that erodes Americans' quality of life, PE and Wall St are the ultimate culprits. I am curious if you have more fleshed out pieces on this specific topic.
Thanks, Matt. Google is clearly anti-competitive on its face. Politicians on all sides are owned by Google. Without Google support, no one can overcome the disadvantage of their opposition.
Profits to private investors who purchased the parking meters through the year 2084 in Chicago out for 2019. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/8/2/21348711/chicago-parking-meters-75-year-lease