Re: Loan Charge for big companies
The big companies have unfortunately the means to afford very competent accountants who can prove they are following the law to the letter.
1289 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Sep 2019
The scraping should only be opt in.
That's silly. It's like saying users should ask for the consentement of websites before accessing them.
In the first place, it's even sillier to imagine that there is a website admin who knows about the existence of Google and who's unable to set up a robots.txt file. That was a standard way before Google existed.
"Google is distorting competition by restricting access by third parties to user data for advertising purposes on websites and apps, while reserving such data for its own use."
If you parse this carefully, you realize that the stated issue here is not that Google knows too much about users, but that their competitors don't know as much.
So what do you think will happen? Will Google stop gathering so much data? Or will the EU force them to give* the same data to their competitors?
*(or sell, even. Considering the EU's "solution" for online shopping, it's more likely)
The weird part is that with market-based prices, it would be the reverse — large players would logically have to pay far less than small players, due to economies of scale. The money skimmed by Apple has nothing to do with the cost of running the App store; it is self-evidently a (progressive) tax on those who want to make money in the walled garden. The messages it sends is clear: "we have control of the users, and if you want to make money from those users, we want our share".
Sounds like they're saying Google is already profiting somehow from the existence of online scams, so they shouldn't receive yet more money for running ads fighting the problem. Or maybe they're saying Google's so rich that they should run the ads for free as a public service.
The question is what to do about it. Android and iOS totally have a duopoly, but they are actually competing pretty hard already, and whoever tries to create a third system will get shredded. How do you break the situation? Forcing them to accept third-party app stores is good, maybe forcing Google to make its apps available independently of Google Play Services might be another. I'm still not sure that this will be enough.
Curry is a very common dish in Japan, and they have lots of cheap restaurants specialized in curry — Japanese restaurants tend to be specialized in variations of a single dish, so if you go there, everybody must eat some kind of curry. That's not the kind of place to charge $500 a pop, though.
They deserve beer with the curry.
There is an infinity of shades between "just a search engine on the web" and "giant behemoth with way too much power". Laws are not well suited to handle the slow progression from one to the other over several decades. I'm not sure that Google is already at the level that it should be regulated like a public utility, and the question is probably not going to be decided by the courts of Ohio. But if Google keeps gaining in power the way it has until now, they will have to be regulated somehow. There has in fact been several laws that have been passed almost exclusively for Google, from the right to be forgotten to the French digital tax, not to mention the push to update safe harbor and copyright laws.
I think it is an idealistic misconception that laws devolve of simple rules which determine what is right and just. The world is way too complex for simple rules to determine that, and laws are just rules written to prevent issues which threaten the balance of society. Giant corporations like Google have found by chance some kind of loopholes in those rules, and they are threatening the balance of society, so new rules will have to be written.
Usually, I'm able to understand some of what the issue is, like at this point Google uses that data, or advantages this product that they own instead of that third-party product. Here it seems Google advantaged its technologies in the DFP (Doubleclick for Publishers) and SSP (Supply-Side Platform) servers, but that's all I can find in the ruling or anywhere else. The details of how Google will fix the issues are similarly vague.
Google seems to be taking these rulings in stride, though.
I don't think it is the only thing they are touchy about. Taiwan is another hot topic.
I think we can find an explanation in the recent relaxation of the policy on the number of children. It used to be one only, then it was relaxed to two children, and now they've relaxed it to three. Why relax to three? Surely at this point they could just allow any number of children, right? There are very few people who want more than three anyway.
But the reason they don't want to allow any number of children, or they don't want people to talk about Tiananmen, is that it would mean accepting losing control. Admitting a mistake. Having egg on their face. And that is not their way. They think it would make them look weak.
Funnily, this could happen to Google as well. The problem of the newspapers is that the way they benefit to society — news — is distinct from the way they made their money: ads. Somebody came up that was more efficient at ads, and they lost their source of revenue. We regret this, because society really needs the news, otherwise nobody would mind their passing, same as nobody cares that phone books and yellow pages are gone.
Google also benefits society in a way that is completely distinct from the way they make money. Somebody might well show up who would serve ads even better, and it would be Google's turn to cry for help.
They have >100k employees, which is easily enough to have some women who were treated unfairly. It's even enough to have a few pockets were women are systematically treated unfairly, despite all the ostensible efforts from the top to root out issues.
So it's well possible that these women have grounds for complaining how they were treated, but it's a very different question to claim that the issues are company-wide... And I would assume that the company have carefully documented their efforts.
Google might still decide to settle just to make the lawsuit go away, though. It's often cheaper than paying the lawyers.
The women might accept the lower salaries, but there are too few of them applying to fill all positions. Note that Google also sued for discriminating against men when hiring. Then again, they also got sued in a third lawsuit for discriminating against women.
Considering they have over 100k employees, they have plenty of opportunities to discriminate against a lot of people...
This is the same company that uses all the tricks in the book to get you to sign on to a "free trial" of Amazon Prime.
In my case, I installed the Kindle app and got to a screen on which the only visible button registered you to a free trial. You had to use the Android back button to refuse. And I only knew I was registered when I called support about the unknown charge on my credit card — the subscription didn't even show anywhere on the Amazon website.
I am truly at a loss for words as to why this seemed like a good idea to your development team.
All these features are essentially the way comments work on Google Docs. That was likely the reason for introducing them... Whether this was a good idea or not, that's a different matter.
Suppose you're one of these people protesting. You have to make $1M a year to join the group, so suppose you make, oh, $10M a year, every year! Lot of money, huh?
Then lucky you, it will only take a century for you to have a billion dollars... and Jeff Bezos has two hundred billions dollars.
They have a point.
I'm pessimistic about surveillance, mostly because technology makes it much easier to beach the privacy of people than to protect it.
We've never managed to build a house that is impervious to burglary (at least, not for average people), and people know that and accept the risk. I believe this will be the final situation for privacy breaches.
I'm suddenly reminded that my mother deliberately keeps cheap jewelry in her bedstand, to satisfy burglars, and the real stuff is hidden somewhere else. At the moment, such a deceptive tactic would be called sophisticated in the digital world, but it might well become a common trick used by grandmothers.
The fact that you end up buying the same thing over and over gives more money to the content creators, and relieves you of money that you obviously don't need. It makes money circulate, which is good for the economy! Are you against the economy? Are you a pinko commie liberal?
The funny part is that protecting users from malicious apps is the excuse used for restrictive policies which third-parties claim are deliberately made to prevent them from competing with first-party apps... And the best way to increase competition is to make it easier to download apps from other app stores, which will probably massively increase the amount of malware. Hmmm...
I find it curious the big difference between iOS and Android isn't mentioned: it's easy to bypass the Play store and get apps from a third-party app store, or directly from the developer. Are users so inert that it's impossible to be successful without paying the tax?
The makers of Fortnite announced a couple of years back that they would be only available on a third-party app store (or rather, that they wouldn't pay the subscription tax, so they got booted out from the big stores). I'm sure there are ongoing lawsuits about it, but in the meantime I assume Fortnite is still successful?