THE COMING REGULATION OF FB/GOOGLE (And the Media) —“Can you share your though

THE COMING REGULATION OF FB/GOOGLE (And the Media)

—“Can you share your thoughts on ”anti-competitive” behaviour of dominant companies? If you have already shared your views on the subject will appreciate a link to your post on the subject . Thanks”— Rakesh Sahgal

—“So why should we regulate these successful giants?”—Corey Harms

Search (google), Converse (facebook), Acquire (Amazon), Dispute (Court), Repair (healthcare). What’s Missing? (a) finance/credit/banking, and (b) organization of production.

In other words, aside from family(sex), invention, financing, and production – all of which require secrecy in the seizure of opportunities, and preservation of the markets, there is no reason why google, facebook, amazon/ups, are not utilities the same way that courts, energy/water/sewer/transportation/telecommunications, healthcare are utilities.

Why? The problem is that advertising provides the same malincentives (corruption) that using representatives (politicians) provides. And the total spending on advertising in google, facebook, is trivial compared to their asset value as communication platforms. I mean, the cost of operating google and facebook outside of their playtoy (repeated failures) experiments on the shareholder dollar, is trivial.

Advertising has value (well, truthful advertising does). However, the modification of search results and the modification of facebook content constitutes ‘disinformation’ (deception). And the suppression of free speech on the platforms to provide advertisers with more surface area for advertizing is again, a form of deception.

As such the problem is eliminating the ability of ‘utilities’ to engage in revenue expansion by means of exploiting users rather than merely requiring advertisers to improve their products, services, and messaging.

In other words, they need to favor the maximum truth regardless of profits, rather than the minimum truth necessary to maximize profits: they need to be regulated. And they need only be regulated to non-interference (non-aggression).

As I’ve written about lately in my call for Facebook to be regulated, there is no reason (at all) why facebook cannot allow us to op-into socially taboo subjects and eliminate our ability to opt-into illegal subjects. The problem is that it would provide a degree of precision that advertisers would use to demand lower fees.

So as far as I know, the future looks to me like there are a lot more public utilities. And I have my target on a lot of companies providing information and credit that need to be raised to the same standard as those companies that provide products and services.