I'm genuinely unsure how I feel about this article.<p>First, the internet itself is only in danger if net neutrality is genuinely threatened by ISPs. Until then, the network itself is as open as it ever was.<p>As for the services on top, the meta-layer of products and infrastructure we rely on--social media, content sources, smartphones and smart devices, etc--there's a lot of reason to be concerned.<p>But Amazon's marketshare is tiny compared to traditional retailers. They're growing, sure, but they're not a monopoly yet.<p>Apple is already being beaten on many fronts, smartphones included.<p>Google is successful in a few areas (search, email, android), but they've proven incapable of pushing into other major areas (streaming services, social, etc).<p>And Facebook also has basically one core competency.<p>So, there's lots of reasons to be concerned. But this article feels more than a little hyperbolic.<p>And as a random aside, modern theories suggest that pyramid builders were paid employees and not slaves.
Fun experiment to try out on your computer and experience the gradual death of the internet: block all domains and subdomains from Google and Facebook in your `/etc/hosts` file, and see how many other websites fail to function.<p>I've had this enabled for 6 months and I've seen websites stopped working as they should, e.g.:<p>- I couldn't reset my password in Twitch, it required (for some reason) access to both Facebook and Google servers. I had to temporarily disable the `/etc/hosts` restrictions<p>- National Geographic site fetches jQuery from Google and the website is unusable<p>- No more embedded Google Maps on many small websites (like local restaurants etc)<p>- Say bye to embedded YouTube videos<p>- Many small websites just display in blank<p>- Other websites have default ugly fonts but are still usable<p>So Google and Facebook's reach is not just related to direct visits to their sites. Essentially, without them, it's a very crippled internet. The one site that works great is Wikipedia, even its videos are self hosted.
What I think is potentially more interesting is the anti-consumer behaviors of Amazon in what I call the Amazon/Google cold war over video:<p>- Amazon not allowing the sale of chromecast<p>- Amazon keeping its instant video app off generic android TV devices for a long time, even though they had an app that worked with the Sony android TV.<p>- Amazon using its instant video app as a trojan horse to get you to install the Amazon app store on your Android phone. (and weakening your phone's security, due to having to "allow unknown sources"
> Facebook's algorithmic echo chamber got Trump elected.<p>The article he references talks extensively about how the campaign effectively used social media for fundraising and advertising instead of tv, not echo chambers for brainwashing people. After all this time people still can't admit that echo chambers are what propped up Clinton in every media outlet and poll.
I always wonder why the whole "facebook internet" isn't brought up more by pro net-neutrality folks. I think there's only one article that's been written about a particularly worrisome consequence it has as well [1].<p>While I think it'd take a very long time for Americans to actually be convinced of this, the reason why this is happening (because facebook might as well be THE internet for these users) is a lot more worrisome. Particularly when Mark himself is running soon.<p>(1)<a href="https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/" rel="nofollow">https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-id...</a>
There's an effect here that this article doesn't mention and that most don't mention.<p>Large scale innovation happens in one of two ways: a strong industry leader, or via government. The latter is relatively rare because government is necessarily usually more conservative; the former happens more easily, especially because industry leaders often are either formed or maintained because a private venture was able to move fast enough to develop a technology in a way that has large societal implications.<p>The side effect, though, is that people who work at those private industries that have innovated and developer something new (which may or may not have short term deleterious effects) eventually leave and either diffuse their knowledge or start their own ventures. When this happens, as time passes, many other new ventures - which can often have an effect directly opposite to said deleterious effects, or otherwise have positive effects - spring up and take hold. And that's a net positive.<p>There are people who worked at (or currently work at and will leave) Google and Facebook, advertising companies that have disproportionately much power, but will use the knowledge they gained from those places to put into effects efforts that they might not have known how to otherwise and that may make the world better, long term.<p>Articles like the one posted here are passionate and persuasive, but they also focus on the short term (if not solely the present); it is worthwhile to remember these sorts of long term effects.
In case you want to shorten the title in similar situations ("The GAFA War"):<p>FAMGA - Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon<p>GAFA - Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple<p>FANG - Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google
If your are a coder, I'd say: Split your money between those four giants and get back to code [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://goo.gl/TjDviU" rel="nofollow">https://goo.gl/TjDviU</a>
Network externalities (product's value to a consumer changes as the number of users of the product changes) are so incredibly strong that few monopoly powers and eventual market failure is inevitability.<p>If you could run multiple parallel universes starting from early 90's, you would end with just handful of companies dominating the markets and using one service or product to leverage to other areas in almost all of them. Just the names of the companies would change.<p>0014749879
> Your iPhone signals you’re wealthier, better-educated, and more attractive than an Android user.<p>The "status" argument is a bit silly. An iPhone costs about the same as a dog annually, [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-980&y=-2276&z=5" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-980&y=-2276&z=5</a>
This article is like scaremongering, partly about how Google and Facebook are selling ads but interlaced with "SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEWSLETTER!", all the same. Some posts can be so ironical.