Ok, this seems relevant here… if these groups don’t want Facebook and Google to have this kind of power, why to they keep giving them access to their content instead of waging a boycott? This is third party content, not original to FB and Google. Why are they giving them business they don’t want them to have?
“Not only have Google and Facebook perfected a system in which they use third-party content to bring in advertising revenue, they’ve also mastered monetizing their user base.”
No matter how much you choose to ignore it, this is a structure that is built and maintained by users who are freely choosing a relationship that is protected by the First Amendment.
You call it a duopoly, and you cite articles that clearly say they only exist because everyone chooses to prioritize their space to put their content. This is not being oppressed. We don’t see NBC claiming that they are being harmed because Game of Thrones is on HBO, but that is the argument you are making: that somehow, people who are putting their content on the market, are not responsible for the ways the market chooses to consume and share that content.
Here, you are citing a trade group that is exploiting a congressman to carve out a privileged position under the law:
“The Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, introduced by Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, would allow media outlets to come together to negotiate terms with Facebook, Google and other tech companies.
“Our democracy is strongest when we have a free, open press that informs citizens, holds public officials accountable, and roots out corruption,” said Cicilline, who is on the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee.
Facebook and Google — which the News Media Alliance is calling “the Duopoly” — together account for about 70 percent of online ad revenue, according to different tracking firms. The News Media Alliance, which represents about 2,000 newspapers in the United States and Canada, including this one, puts that number at 73 percent.”
“The News Media Alliance” is a lobbying group made up of newspapers: In fact, they are asking for an antitrust law exemption for themselves in order to collude against Google.
You should be more honest about the kinds of opinions you present as if they are human voices:
“Traditional competitors including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, as well as a host of smaller print and online publications, will temporarily set aside their differences this week and appeal to federal lawmakers to let them negotiate collectively with the technology giants to safeguard the industry.
Antitrust laws traditionally prevent companies from forming such an alliance which could see them becoming over-dominant in a particular sector. However, the media companies will be hoping that Congress will look favorably on a temporary exemption, particularly giving the recent clampdown on the technology industry which saw Google slapped with a $2.7 billion antitrust fine.”
What you are quoting is lobbying group propaganda. I have no desire to help our corporate media further entrench their dominance in the conversation. As I said, why aren’t those guys offering me or Alex Jones space on their OpEd pages? Haven’t you noticed how Medium’s featured articles are overwhelmingly network linked? Those are all paid members.
Tons of liberal sources have been banned over the years. I don’t know why you do not investigate the claims you make.
Do you really believe liberal sources are not frivolously banned?
