It's funny that you mention big tech being cool with Trump. Remember, it all happened when the dems over blown Jan 6 and the Russia gate bullshit. Twitter kicked him off even though he said nothing at all that they pretended he said.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I can't help but notice your bias and blindness. Big tech is pro authoritarian, pro censorship whether it's the RepubliBLOODS or DemoCRIPS.
The real solution is not blue or red. It's populist instead.
How much has Google’s ad monopoly destroyed the news business? Didn’t all the media companies give up on print ads because Google’s digital ad biz was the future, but digital ads didn’t bring in enough profit for news companies to survive (thanks, Google!), and our media quality has been so degraded since then.
Regarding the ad ecosystem that Google controls and is its primary source of revenue:
You say: “Basically, Google has an ecosystem it taxes, and the government is seeking to find ways to pry open that ecosystem so rivals can start to compete.“
GOOGLE’s power over search results is also fundamental to the spread of dis or mis-information about competition in every market. To motivate search competitors who do better:
Amend Section 230 to hold media companies liable for damages caused by content that they alter by targeting, amplification, editing, fake likes, etc. with the punishment being fines equal to twice their ad rate per “impression”. To implement, all media data must now be open source so it can be recorded in real time to calculate fines without giving media a chance to alter the data.
Advertisers will love this because now they can breakthrough the media black box that hides ad fraud to inflate rates. Small business will benefit the most because they lack the resources and clout to prove that google manipulates search results to hide their web page until they pay the google ad “tax”. When advertisers love legislation the media has no choice but to accept.
Search competitors will have access to data to “clean” out artificially amplified content.
Free speech which resonates with the most people and organic search for entrepreneurs will finally be able to rise to the top.
Excellent summary. Very helpful. Thank you. Separating search from advertising would almost certainly improve the quality of search results. Google has lowered the quality of its once excellent search results in way that now favor its advertisers.
Separately than Waymo, what shocked me the most in San Francisco, was Salesforce. Somehow they have donated enough money that public infrastructure is now named after a working company: a major transit station and a park. And what's more, all the buildings around the transit station have the logo of Salesforce on them.
I really don't know if there are precedents out there for anything like this. I don't think so. I mean, it's not commemoration, but pure advertising.
I felt, to say the least, that I was in some terrible dystopic future. A very boring future that is. The park is a boring copy of the Highline. It doesn't stand up to its predecessor at all. And seeing the logo in the name, a generic company name everywhere - sales + force... like a bad Superman sequel – is also boring. Extremely boring. Lack of competition = dictatorship = zero motivation.
Neither I, nor the friends I was with, had any clue as to what Salesforce even did. It was like this abstract stamp placed on every building. Somebody owned the government. Salesforce. But what did they do? Nobody knew, Who are they, nobody knew.
I visited San Francisco for the first time in 10 years and tried the Waymo robot car. Apparently, 1,000 of them are deployed every day. I think it was mostly tourists taking it, for the novel "ha-ha" experience, like me. I felt like it made the city just look like a large urban game board. I just couldn't take the cars seriously, and I took the city less seriously for it.
It was OK on one ride, but on another ride it got stuck in what a friend in tech called "an infinite loop." It couldn't find a place to pull over, although a human driver would have, so it kept going in circles around the larger neighborhood. After round three, I was kind of frightened. I felt like I was a prisoner of this machine. After the first loop, somebody at an "undisclosed location" got on the speaker, but they could not control the car. The only way I was able to get out was by pulling the door handle to open it twice. Then it stopped.
It's completely nuts that the city of San Francisco is allowing human beings to be prey to these machines. But that's what our whole system has allowed Google and Big Tech to do so far.
Based on my experience, which they of course would try to hide, I would say it is "cool" but very dangerous.
Of course they have 25% of the ride shares, because they have a monopoly, releasing thousands of cars out at loss. They are everywhere in SF. Just because they're everywhere doesn't make them good.
I'm sorry you're so blinded by what's cool not to see the dangers.
“Based on your experience” is the problem. Research has shown that Waymo is safer than human drivers. Unfortunately, “your experience ” is just that, and isn’t a substitute for everyone else’s experience
And monopoly on ride sharing? In SF? There is Uber, Lyft and a bunch of other small self driving startups.
I’m not blinded, I’m just merely pointing out that your entire argument on Waymo is based on “your experience” and not any concrete data or insight about the efficacy of Waymo. It’s just vibes lol
OK Google bot, I'm sure that they control the research published, and I know that they flood the streets with their cars in San Francisco. That's a fact. Everywhere you look you see their cars.
Again, calling me names and saying you see them “flood the streets” isn’t a substitute for evidence that they are less than human drivers or a monopoly
My personal experience goes to show you that there is no human that can take over the car. That's a fact that's not personal or anecdotal in any way. And that is super dangerous. There was nobody who could stop that car until I was told that I have to open the door to do it. That is dangerous and that's not anecdotal. It's a fact.
And yes, I do suspect that this is Google paid countercreview. They are monopoly, they have a lot of money, they control reviews and research. So “anecdotal” experiences like are really important to look into and not dismiss.
It's funny that you mention big tech being cool with Trump. Remember, it all happened when the dems over blown Jan 6 and the Russia gate bullshit. Twitter kicked him off even though he said nothing at all that they pretended he said.
I'm not a Trump supporter but I can't help but notice your bias and blindness. Big tech is pro authoritarian, pro censorship whether it's the RepubliBLOODS or DemoCRIPS.
The real solution is not blue or red. It's populist instead.
How much has Google’s ad monopoly destroyed the news business? Didn’t all the media companies give up on print ads because Google’s digital ad biz was the future, but digital ads didn’t bring in enough profit for news companies to survive (thanks, Google!), and our media quality has been so degraded since then.
“The time of theoretical consequences is over”. The most beautiful words of the year.
What are the chances of these decisions getting reversed?
Regarding the ad ecosystem that Google controls and is its primary source of revenue:
You say: “Basically, Google has an ecosystem it taxes, and the government is seeking to find ways to pry open that ecosystem so rivals can start to compete.“
GOOGLE’s power over search results is also fundamental to the spread of dis or mis-information about competition in every market. To motivate search competitors who do better:
Amend Section 230 to hold media companies liable for damages caused by content that they alter by targeting, amplification, editing, fake likes, etc. with the punishment being fines equal to twice their ad rate per “impression”. To implement, all media data must now be open source so it can be recorded in real time to calculate fines without giving media a chance to alter the data.
Advertisers will love this because now they can breakthrough the media black box that hides ad fraud to inflate rates. Small business will benefit the most because they lack the resources and clout to prove that google manipulates search results to hide their web page until they pay the google ad “tax”. When advertisers love legislation the media has no choice but to accept.
Search competitors will have access to data to “clean” out artificially amplified content.
Free speech which resonates with the most people and organic search for entrepreneurs will finally be able to rise to the top.
Excellent summary. Very helpful. Thank you. Separating search from advertising would almost certainly improve the quality of search results. Google has lowered the quality of its once excellent search results in way that now favor its advertisers.
Separately than Waymo, what shocked me the most in San Francisco, was Salesforce. Somehow they have donated enough money that public infrastructure is now named after a working company: a major transit station and a park. And what's more, all the buildings around the transit station have the logo of Salesforce on them.
I really don't know if there are precedents out there for anything like this. I don't think so. I mean, it's not commemoration, but pure advertising.
I felt, to say the least, that I was in some terrible dystopic future. A very boring future that is. The park is a boring copy of the Highline. It doesn't stand up to its predecessor at all. And seeing the logo in the name, a generic company name everywhere - sales + force... like a bad Superman sequel – is also boring. Extremely boring. Lack of competition = dictatorship = zero motivation.
Neither I, nor the friends I was with, had any clue as to what Salesforce even did. It was like this abstract stamp placed on every building. Somebody owned the government. Salesforce. But what did they do? Nobody knew, Who are they, nobody knew.
I visited San Francisco for the first time in 10 years and tried the Waymo robot car. Apparently, 1,000 of them are deployed every day. I think it was mostly tourists taking it, for the novel "ha-ha" experience, like me. I felt like it made the city just look like a large urban game board. I just couldn't take the cars seriously, and I took the city less seriously for it.
It was OK on one ride, but on another ride it got stuck in what a friend in tech called "an infinite loop." It couldn't find a place to pull over, although a human driver would have, so it kept going in circles around the larger neighborhood. After round three, I was kind of frightened. I felt like I was a prisoner of this machine. After the first loop, somebody at an "undisclosed location" got on the speaker, but they could not control the car. The only way I was able to get out was by pulling the door handle to open it twice. Then it stopped.
It's completely nuts that the city of San Francisco is allowing human beings to be prey to these machines. But that's what our whole system has allowed Google and Big Tech to do so far.
This is an odd thing considering that Waymo works quite well, is safer than human drivers and makes up about 25% of ride shares in SF and Austin.
You can dislike Google while also acknowledging cool tech
Based on my experience, which they of course would try to hide, I would say it is "cool" but very dangerous.
Of course they have 25% of the ride shares, because they have a monopoly, releasing thousands of cars out at loss. They are everywhere in SF. Just because they're everywhere doesn't make them good.
I'm sorry you're so blinded by what's cool not to see the dangers.
“Based on your experience” is the problem. Research has shown that Waymo is safer than human drivers. Unfortunately, “your experience ” is just that, and isn’t a substitute for everyone else’s experience
And monopoly on ride sharing? In SF? There is Uber, Lyft and a bunch of other small self driving startups.
I’m not blinded, I’m just merely pointing out that your entire argument on Waymo is based on “your experience” and not any concrete data or insight about the efficacy of Waymo. It’s just vibes lol
OK Google bot, I'm sure that they control the research published, and I know that they flood the streets with their cars in San Francisco. That's a fact. Everywhere you look you see their cars.
Again, calling me names and saying you see them “flood the streets” isn’t a substitute for evidence that they are less than human drivers or a monopoly
My personal experience goes to show you that there is no human that can take over the car. That's a fact that's not personal or anecdotal in any way. And that is super dangerous. There was nobody who could stop that car until I was told that I have to open the door to do it. That is dangerous and that's not anecdotal. It's a fact.
And yes, I do suspect that this is Google paid countercreview. They are monopoly, they have a lot of money, they control reviews and research. So “anecdotal” experiences like are really important to look into and not dismiss.