@@anugrahvijay6720 JB only owns about 12 precent of Amazon stock so that wouldn't make a big difference; also what Scott talks about is the tentacles of the octopus reaching to far to deep into different sectors leaving no room for competition so regardless of who owns the octopus it still is to big and to influential
Winner: Scott. He's still widely recognized in the field of marketing and now that we don't expect these videos we all feel a need to like and comment even more to keep him in the game. Losers: Us. He probably had these interviews scheduled a month ago. Nothing but teasers.
Blake Maurer not in my humble opinion. I could be wrong but I hear obfuscation of the challenges not clarity or any fixes. We all know it’s not easy so what? Solve it.
@@samanjj I think we all know people chilling on the internet are not solving any problems in the immediate. The way to solve the problems is to position yourself into power to make change. However, speaking of the challenges and bringing light to them allows we the people to position ourselves to garner that power. Insights like Richards are invaluable to advanced positioning.
@@samanjj but is he in any more of a spot to effect change? Thomas Jefferson maintained that one of the foundational principals of democracy was a well informed electorate. Richard could serve that role and help by informing the electorate.
Blake Maurer hey for sure. But then he should suggest something based on his analysis. He left it all hanging and all I heard behind it all is ‘it’s too hard!’
Great Video! I have been following your channel for half a year now. It’s really informative and educational. Regulation has become a huge deal in the last month. Everybody is talking about the threatening article 13. Even CZcams Germany is calling for people and putting ads on their platform calling “to do something against article 13 or can you imagine life without CZcams?” Really exciting. This year I am trying to apply for the MBA at NYU - Stern to start my graduate Programm in Summer 2020. I am preparing right now 🙏🏼 Hope to see you soon. Greets from Germany
I love this STUFF 👍🏾. Scott, please bring back Winners and Losers. If not, maybe a Podcast 🤔. I know you still have a lot to talk about. Side note: I Loved your book.
Damn! What a thrill! Please talk more! Also, Scott seems unusually low-energy, but I guess everyony would be so facing this hypernova of insight that is Richard. Kudos!
I would LOVE to see this discussion continue on PBS or National Public Radio - ideally in a weekly show. Despite the title, I watch this and I feel some hope for a better future. A TV series could build top-of-mind awareness in a different audience than the one that enjoys you on CZcams. Who could watch THIS and remain incurious about the regulatory challenges the DOJ will have to overcome in order to effectively regulate our nation's global communications monopolies? You two are exciting - fun to watch. You don't agree on everything, but it seems like you can finish each other's sentences ANYWAY. There's a lot of energy there. If the brainstorming and arguing continues, who KNOWS what you'll come up with?
Scott, thanks again for hosting an in-depth interview with Richard regarding the "four horsemen" monopoly these giants represent. I believe tech is moving faster than average consumers can adapt which has resulted in these companies owning massive amounts of data with almost no effort compared to media funnels of the past. Along with a dependency that no humans have ever had since the car was invented! And now I'll go back to fixing my beachside rustbucket...
Scott I 100% agree with your statement that Richard's stance seems to be "this would hurt Google/Facebook to split them up" when that is entirely the point! Splitting up is about stopping harm to the consumer, not to the corporation.
"This would hurt FB/Goog" in the sense tha tit would affect their core value offering and monopoly, and hence their business and way of life, and hence all their future outlook and spending will disappear in favour of protecting the bottom line like an old company, and hence the consumer and world economy at large will be adversely affected by the move. It's a net negative. That's what he's syaing
@@TheHellogs4444 It's never a net negative to encourage competition. History has shown us once a company has monopoly power they invariably exploit it for their own gain and to the detriment of other businesses and potential employees.
@@deviladv you didn't understand what they meant when they said it'd hurt google etc. Basically, Google being a monopoly is not BAD for consumer, that is, No consumer is getting harmed because Google is the only search engine. And in order for DOJ to break up Google, they first need to prove that Google being monopoly is bad for public. Which is hard to do. Like the more people use Google search, Google algorithm gets better, that is the bigger monopoly google is better the search result for Consumers. HOWEVER opposite is true, that is by breaking up Google, it would harm their entire structure as Google not just their profits, and that'd hurt Consumers a lot. For ex. Google Maps is the most important and most ambitious service ever offered by anyone. And millions of Consumers use it for FREE OF COST. The only reason Google can offer such important services to millions of customers is because THEY ARE BIG TECH. Also look at youtube, when Google acquired CZcams, it monetised the platform, that is from now on youtubers started making whole lotta money, making comfortable living just by uploading shit on CZcams. Even today Google operates CZcams at a huge loss. By breaking up Google you will have to pay for Google Maps, and other Google services which millions need, and they won't be as robust and efficient as they are now. So, increasing compitition by breaking up BIG TECH is BAD for public.
Many US states do allow and regulate natural monopolies (utilities) such as gas, water, sewage, telecom, etc. Why not allow tech companies to have their monopolies but in exchange force their boards to be 51% public servants?
You guys should look at a company called Brave. They're building a privacy-focused browser called Brave which blocks all ads and tracking by default, and a new model of advertising called the Basic Attention Token which aims to complete flip upside-down the traditional "aggregate and advertise" model that Facebook and Google built their businesses on. It's like Richard said at 12:31-the data stays on your device (and because Richard sounded skeptical about the fact that it will respect your privacy, everything they're building is open source), with a combination of contextual targeting, and relevant ad matching done with local machine learning. The user also gets rewarded for their attention, and can redistribute their earned tokens to all the creators and publishers they support (I just tipped this channel). There are already 5.5 million Brave users (I'm typing in Brave right now), and some publishers are already earning 4 figures per month from BAT donations, which is significant, because they would otherwise be earning $0 from the same users, who are more than likely young, wealthy owners of the 600M+ devices blocking ads today. (Sidenote: you guys didn't mention Google's plans to implement their own adblocker into Chrome which blocks everything the Coalition for Better Ads-made up of the "big boys" in digital ads-deems unacceptable, which is one of the biggest reasons I've seen people call for antitrust action on Google.) The CEO of Brave is the creator of JavaScript and co-founder of Mozilla/Firefox, so he's already done both things necessary to make this project successful: restarted the browser wars, and created a web protocol that becomes a global standard. They're going to create an SDK for the Basic Attention Token later this year, which will allow this model to be implemented into anything from apps, to other browsers, to games, to podcast apps, and anything else that runs on attention. Oh, and the Basic Attention Token is already an approved currency in the iOS App Store. My 2019 prediction: Brave triples its user count, becomes a serious competitor in the browser wars, and starts to make waves with creators and publishers. I wrote about this here: hackernoon.com/how-google-collapsed-b6ffa82198ee (cited in the book Life After Google, which you'd both enjoy) and here: hackernoon.com/the-attention-revolution-your-next-browser-will-pay-you-b8b12399c3f7
Feel like doing a re run on your Nike lovefest video Scott? Latest malpractice in their sweatshops might need looking at along with kapernicks ethics on this topic
This guy's argument is basically "it doesn't make sense to split this unified services up" but that isn't a valid argument against anti-trust issues that Galloway is pointing out.
Why is the difference between a platform company and a media company not defined by the nature of the recipient of information rather than the nature of the sender of information? In the case of publishers, information is published and accessible to anybody willing to access or pay for it. In the case of, whereas platforms are conduits for information to be moved from one identifiable individual to another identifiable individual. The information conduited by platforms is inherently private, whereas the information publicized by publishers and media are anything but private. Facebook cannot claim to be a conduit / platform because they do not provide delivery of private communication for anyone. Moreover, that which they publish is generally not targeted even to a narrow group of identifiable people. They would have to radically change their business model into something completely unrecognizable by users today in order to meet this definition of a platform. But if they did, anyone would have a problem with them.
"individually consumers are not worth much"? Well that's just wrong. 25 years ago a qualified phone number in the hands of a marketer was worth $10-15 per person. 15 years ago a qualified email address was worth $50. I cannot believe that today we are not worth much. If we were not worth much then they would sell me privacy; and in fact they sort-of do. Unfortunately is gets a little crazy when you consider the cost of GSuite and that google dominates the desktop and it's other services like DNS. You don't know what you don't know.
For most of society, most things are worse. Besides low pay, then one needs to be good stock picker & house flippr to bd able p py mortgage. But we don't have: time, educstion, inside info, fast computer, educaion etc. WHY ? we all just get old & our life has lost meaning, corporations hav destroyed communiies, no ethics, integrity etc
Data Donation. Regulators and Congress being tech ignorant is what Andrew Yang's mandate built on. Would be very interested to get Scott's feedback on UBI campaign built on Data being the new Oil and VAT on the big 4 ad revenue and data manipulation for their revenue.
There isn't through.. if you're married, you sold your wife on why, out of 6billion people, you're the right man. If your not married, then she sold you on why you aren't the right man. Almost everything in life is a sale. You're selling or your being sold. And there's nothing negative about sales.
App of the day as paid service, that’s BS. I know a lot of people who have been promoted and it was always a surprise. And as a developer: Apple never offered me anything like this. Search results- yes, promo story - hell no
You have promoted a utraquistc subterfuge by. compounding the term regulation with antitrust enforcement, which is contrary to history of antitrust enforcement. The Antitrust Division (moribund since the ‘70’s). But, there’s a substantive difference between protecting and promoting competition and a regime of regulation, because real competition regulates the market, a regulatory agency is a political bureaucracy that substitutes it judgment for the force of free market competition.
sunzeneise if you had a truly free market I would agree. the US is not lassiez fair capitalist crazy place where corporations can do whatever so no it’s not a free market. Corporations have bail outs and bankruptcy protections. Consumers also have a right to be protected. You also have a social safety net. All of this is regulation and regulators need teeth to enforce the fucken law.
samanjj I do not disagree that the markets are highly concentrated, indeed monopolistic, There is not any will to resurrect and antitrust regime and restructure markets, dissolve concentration and abolish restraints.
sunzeneise it seems that way. I wonder why though? If are willing bail big corporations out with tax payer money, then citizen representatives in congress should be stepping up more on these matters.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Kramer with: 1) Google controls my search result order and scope. Another company using better AI up front, not result refinement on the back end, produce better results. 2) People wanted to leave CZcams for A] better profits and B] get around the "no firearms" How can we have free speech when one company controls more than the lions share of videos. 3) Where is my privacy under Google? Would people pay for a Bing or lower level search engine to get privacy back? I think so. These are the moral and finacial drives for one or more Google competitors. D.o.J. will not save me. Banks are still "Too big to fail" as a case in point. "We the people" will have to do it.
people don't care enough about their privacy to change the settings, and you think they would be willing to pay? as for youtube, no other company can challenge them becuase it's not a profitable business.
Politics will eventually ruin everything it touches, because (all) people are controlled to some extent by their prejudice - period. Perhaps AI could play a positive roll in social media, by protecting the flow of information from prejudicial censorship.
Brilliant, this show sells to another business. Immediately its propoganda against why you shouldn't listen to the most powerful ideas this channel ever created.
Google Search effective? Nope. It's dumber because it has weakened boolean logic for AI that brings up dumb results. Algorithms are Google's and CZcams's weakness. I hate their monopolization. It's making things harder by overwhelm.
I know you’ve been advocating breaking up Amazon but I think you owe MacKanzie Bezos a call to let her know this is not what you meant
Ciprian Alexandru
Lmao
Think about it though. Imagine if the divorce is a bezos hoax and it was orchestrated to make it seem that Amazon is breaking up.
@@anugrahvijay6720 JB only owns about 12 precent of Amazon stock so that wouldn't make a big difference; also what Scott talks about is the tentacles of the octopus reaching to far to deep into different sectors leaving no room for competition so regardless of who owns the octopus it still is to big and to influential
Damn, another Romanian here. Salutare
Andrei Simionescu 🤷🏻♂️ salut
Winner: Scott. He's still widely recognized in the field of marketing and now that we don't expect these videos we all feel a need to like and comment even more to keep him in the game.
Losers: Us. He probably had these interviews scheduled a month ago. Nothing but teasers.
I read this in scott's voice
@@adamsaldana5462 hahaha. Now I can't help but do the same.
Richard needs a channel of his own. Throw out those little juicy nuggets of wisdom, and collect more clients! Great talk.
Blake Maurer not in my humble opinion. I could be wrong but I hear obfuscation of the challenges not clarity or any fixes. We all know it’s not easy so what? Solve it.
@@samanjj I think we all know people chilling on the internet are not solving any problems in the immediate. The way to solve the problems is to position yourself into power to make change. However, speaking of the challenges and bringing light to them allows we the people to position ourselves to garner that power. Insights like Richards are invaluable to advanced positioning.
Blake Maurer oh I know. I don’t mean us. I meant the guy Scott was interviewing.
@@samanjj but is he in any more of a spot to effect change? Thomas Jefferson maintained that one of the foundational principals of democracy was a well informed electorate. Richard could serve that role and help by informing the electorate.
Blake Maurer hey for sure. But then he should suggest something based on his analysis. He left it all hanging and all I heard behind it all is ‘it’s too hard!’
This was fantastic. Great content.
This is a great format for this type of video/conversation. Hope to see many more like it!
Welcome back Captain!
Thanks for sharing, Richard.
Best interview I’ve seen in 2019.
This was super informative, I need more of this.
Glad you're back Scott, my Thursdays will suck much less.
Please bring back winners and losers! 😭
that was a really a treat, thank you Richard for sharing
A very insightful argument. Even though it was broken down its a video well worth watching again to better understand and/or chew the ideas presented.
WHOA! this was badass. MORE OF THIS GUY PLEASE!
Great Video! I have been following your channel for half a year now. It’s really informative and educational. Regulation has become a huge deal in the last month. Everybody is talking about the threatening article 13. Even CZcams Germany is calling for people and putting ads on their platform calling “to do something against article 13 or can you imagine life without CZcams?” Really exciting. This year I am trying to apply for the MBA at NYU - Stern to start my graduate Programm in Summer 2020. I am preparing right now 🙏🏼 Hope to see you soon. Greets from Germany
Great to see the other side of Scott's arguments, really great back and forth
should have him on at least quarterly! That is when/if there ever was another episode?
cheers!
I love this show. You always explain things so concisely.
Scott interviews Bigger & Better Scott. Great interview!
Thank you for making these.
And now: to re watch it 2 or 3 times to make sure I really followed it, lol
THANKS FOR COMING IN BOSS!!!
Thank you Gentlemen....much obliged.
Great video!
I love this STUFF 👍🏾. Scott, please bring back Winners and Losers. If not, maybe a Podcast 🤔. I know you still have a lot to talk about. Side note: I Loved your book.
Check out his podcast with Kara Swisher, "Pivot"
@@blitzer4077 Cool, thank you. I will check it out.
Yesssss. Keep vids coming!
Richard was very Astute on Big four working infrastructure & market influence. Got great insight from this interaction
Man that was an amazing episode I need to hear more from that guy
Damn! What a thrill! Please talk more! Also, Scott seems unusually low-energy, but I guess everyony would be so facing this hypernova of insight that is Richard. Kudos!
I would LOVE to see this discussion continue on PBS or National Public Radio - ideally in a weekly show. Despite the title, I watch this and I feel some hope for a better future. A TV series could build top-of-mind awareness in a different audience than the one that enjoys you on CZcams. Who could watch THIS and remain incurious about the regulatory challenges the DOJ will have to overcome in order to effectively regulate our nation's global communications monopolies? You two are exciting - fun to watch. You don't agree on everything, but it seems like you can finish each other's sentences ANYWAY. There's a lot of energy there. If the brainstorming and arguing continues, who KNOWS what you'll come up with?
Great talk!
Great insights, Scott! Conversely, it is not lost on me that I spent 16+ minutes watching this on CZcams. SMH
This proportion of Kramer's eyes and ears makes me feel like I'm watching one of the those trippy gifs.
That was a great discussion
Yeah good stuff, liked this interview a lot
Yeah they made a bespoke episode for my post in the last video.
Thanks guys.
Amazon will likely enter into general search inquiry market through their voice controlled echo devices.
Great Show, wish i understood it all.
Breakup AWS from Amazon Shopping! they are cross subsidizing and are a predatory retailer
Can't get enough of it
Scott, thanks again for hosting an in-depth interview with Richard regarding the "four horsemen" monopoly these giants represent. I believe tech is moving faster than average consumers can adapt which has resulted in these companies owning massive amounts of data with almost no effort compared to media funnels of the past. Along with a dependency that no humans have ever had since the car was invented! And now I'll go back to fixing my beachside rustbucket...
scott has some of the best insights in the game, i never doubt him. his predictions have made me a ton of cash in the markets
great stuff, wake up America!
Richard Kramer is the very smart version of Cosmo Kramer
you are my favourite teacher
Wow, this guy’s great. Since Scott is retiring, let’s hire him for the winners and losers segment.
Scott I 100% agree with your statement that Richard's stance seems to be "this would hurt Google/Facebook to split them up" when that is entirely the point! Splitting up is about stopping harm to the consumer, not to the corporation.
"This would hurt FB/Goog" in the sense tha tit would affect their core value offering and monopoly, and hence their business and way of life, and hence all their future outlook and spending will disappear in favour of protecting the bottom line like an old company, and hence the consumer and world economy at large will be adversely affected by the move. It's a net negative. That's what he's syaing
@@TheHellogs4444 It's never a net negative to encourage competition. History has shown us once a company has monopoly power they invariably exploit it for their own gain and to the detriment of other businesses and potential employees.
@@deviladv you didn't understand what they meant when they said it'd hurt google etc.
Basically, Google being a monopoly is not BAD for consumer, that is, No consumer is getting harmed because Google is the only search engine. And in order for DOJ to break up Google, they first need to prove that Google being monopoly is bad for public. Which is hard to do. Like the more people use Google search, Google algorithm gets better, that is the bigger monopoly google is better the search result for Consumers.
HOWEVER opposite is true, that is by breaking up Google, it would harm their entire structure as Google not just their profits, and that'd hurt Consumers a lot.
For ex. Google Maps is the most important and most ambitious service ever offered by anyone. And millions of Consumers use it for FREE OF COST.
The only reason Google can offer such important services to millions of customers is because THEY ARE BIG TECH. Also look at youtube, when Google acquired CZcams, it monetised the platform, that is from now on youtubers started making whole lotta money, making comfortable living just by uploading shit on CZcams. Even today Google operates CZcams at a huge loss.
By breaking up Google you will have to pay for Google Maps, and other Google services which millions need, and they won't be as robust and efficient as they are now.
So, increasing compitition by breaking up BIG TECH is BAD for public.
Many US states do allow and regulate natural monopolies (utilities) such as gas, water, sewage, telecom, etc. Why not allow tech companies to have their monopolies but in exchange force their boards to be 51% public servants?
You guys should look at a company called Brave. They're building a privacy-focused browser called Brave which blocks all ads and tracking by default, and a new model of advertising called the Basic Attention Token which aims to complete flip upside-down the traditional "aggregate and advertise" model that Facebook and Google built their businesses on.
It's like Richard said at 12:31-the data stays on your device (and because Richard sounded skeptical about the fact that it will respect your privacy, everything they're building is open source), with a combination of contextual targeting, and relevant ad matching done with local machine learning. The user also gets rewarded for their attention, and can redistribute their earned tokens to all the creators and publishers they support (I just tipped this channel). There are already 5.5 million Brave users (I'm typing in Brave right now), and some publishers are already earning 4 figures per month from BAT donations, which is significant, because they would otherwise be earning $0 from the same users, who are more than likely young, wealthy owners of the 600M+ devices blocking ads today. (Sidenote: you guys didn't mention Google's plans to implement their own adblocker into Chrome which blocks everything the Coalition for Better Ads-made up of the "big boys" in digital ads-deems unacceptable, which is one of the biggest reasons I've seen people call for antitrust action on Google.)
The CEO of Brave is the creator of JavaScript and co-founder of Mozilla/Firefox, so he's already done both things necessary to make this project successful: restarted the browser wars, and created a web protocol that becomes a global standard. They're going to create an SDK for the Basic Attention Token later this year, which will allow this model to be implemented into anything from apps, to other browsers, to games, to podcast apps, and anything else that runs on attention.
Oh, and the Basic Attention Token is already an approved currency in the iOS App Store.
My 2019 prediction: Brave triples its user count, becomes a serious competitor in the browser wars, and starts to make waves with creators and publishers.
I wrote about this here: hackernoon.com/how-google-collapsed-b6ffa82198ee (cited in the book Life After Google, which you'd both enjoy) and here: hackernoon.com/the-attention-revolution-your-next-browser-will-pay-you-b8b12399c3f7
Daniel James DuckDuckGo also as they do that with search. They have also allied with Apple on maps.
@@samanjj DuckDuckGo is actually partnered with Brave too!
Daniel James privacy is fighting back
I am friends with Richard, who (full disclosure) is a small angel investor in Brave.
@@brendaneich9858 Wow, very cool! Makes sense why his description was so on-point then :)
Feel like doing a re run on your Nike lovefest video Scott? Latest malpractice in their sweatshops might need looking at along with kapernicks ethics on this topic
Bot. GIGO.
"...they are largely captured by the companies they regulate", this guy gets it.
Add the
subtitles plaese 🙏
This guy's argument is basically "it doesn't make sense to split this unified services up" but that isn't a valid argument against anti-trust issues that Galloway is pointing out.
Agree. He is focused in the logic but not principles of healthy human life.
This was spicy 🌶
Perry Ferrell is a smart dude!!! No wonder he started Lollapalooza!!!
Why is the difference between a platform company and a media company not defined by the nature of the recipient of information rather than the nature of the sender of information? In the case of publishers, information is published and accessible to anybody willing to access or pay for it. In the case of, whereas platforms are conduits for information to be moved from one identifiable individual to another identifiable individual. The information conduited by platforms is inherently private, whereas the information publicized by publishers and media are anything but private. Facebook cannot claim to be a conduit / platform because they do not provide delivery of private communication for anyone. Moreover, that which they publish is generally not targeted even to a narrow group of identifiable people. They would have to radically change their business model into something completely unrecognizable by users today in order to meet this definition of a platform. But if they did, anyone would have a problem with them.
"individually consumers are not worth much"? Well that's just wrong. 25 years ago a qualified phone number in the hands of a marketer was worth $10-15 per person. 15 years ago a qualified email address was worth $50. I cannot believe that today we are not worth much. If we were not worth much then they would sell me privacy; and in fact they sort-of do. Unfortunately is gets a little crazy when you consider the cost of GSuite and that google dominates the desktop and it's other services like DNS. You don't know what you don't know.
brilliant
For most of society, most things are worse. Besides low pay, then one needs to be good stock picker & house flippr to bd able p py mortgage. But we don't have: time, educstion, inside info, fast computer, educaion etc. WHY ? we all just get old & our life has lost meaning, corporations hav destroyed communiies, no ethics, integrity etc
DOWNLOAD BRAVE!!!
Whatever....I'm just glad your back
Right? Last time I watched Scott was leaving.
@@SIr_HawX I think he was just ending the whole Winners and Losers series. It's a shame, though.
Data Donation. Regulators and Congress being tech ignorant is what Andrew Yang's mandate built on. Would be very interested to get Scott's feedback on UBI campaign built on Data being the new Oil and VAT on the big 4 ad revenue and data manipulation for their revenue.
I use 🦆 🦆 go. It's cool, I like their mission, but Google is better still because it's used more.
Consumer Harm huh? - Cambridge Analytica. Why did my use of Facebook expose me to that? How is that legal? If it was legal maybe it shouldn’t be.
The lack of views on this video are baffling
The thesis for additive search advantage as a protection against break up is flawed
Is that the guy from Jane's addiction?
jesse diaz lol!
hahaha. He does resemble Perry Ferrel
Because Global Economics > bi-National politics Everytime.
Sense things like Google are natural monopolys it would be better if everyone just bought stock in it and then it was owned by the public
But he said Amazon will break up soon - that was 6 years ago back in 2017.
Wow, that was hard to understand. Can you do that again, and twice as slow?
IBM being prohibited from developing their own operating system for the IBM Personal Computer!
Break up the big 4.
Break the big 4.
Break the 4.
BREAK THE 4!
BREAK THE 4!
BREAK THE 4!
Every time the line between content and advertising on a platform blurs, I leave. There is more to life than being either sold, or sold to.
There isn't through.. if you're married, you sold your wife on why, out of 6billion people, you're the right man. If your not married, then she sold you on why you aren't the right man. Almost everything in life is a sale. You're selling or your being sold. And there's nothing negative about sales.
12:43 - can anyone point to some more evidence on that claim?
He needs to have Catherine Austin Fitts on
Holy hairpiece batman
Why isn't Microsoft in the four to make it the five?
App of the day as paid service, that’s BS. I know a lot of people who have been promoted and it was always a surprise. And as a developer: Apple never offered me anything like this. Search results- yes, promo story - hell no
16:17 well spent.
You have promoted a utraquistc subterfuge by. compounding the term regulation with antitrust enforcement, which is contrary to history of antitrust enforcement. The Antitrust Division (moribund since the ‘70’s). But, there’s a substantive difference between protecting and promoting competition and a regime of regulation, because real competition regulates the market, a regulatory agency is a political bureaucracy that substitutes it judgment for the force of free market competition.
sunzeneise if you had a truly free market I would agree. the US is not lassiez fair capitalist crazy place where corporations can do whatever so no it’s not a free market. Corporations have bail outs and bankruptcy protections. Consumers also have a right to be protected. You also have a social safety net. All of this is regulation and regulators need teeth to enforce the fucken law.
samanjj I do not disagree that the markets are highly concentrated, indeed monopolistic, There is not any will to resurrect and antitrust regime and restructure markets, dissolve concentration and abolish restraints.
sunzeneise it seems that way. I wonder why though? If are willing bail big corporations out with tax payer money, then citizen representatives in congress should be stepping up more on these matters.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Kramer with:
1) Google controls my search result order and scope. Another company using better AI up front, not result refinement on the back end, produce better results.
2) People wanted to leave CZcams for A] better profits and B] get around the "no firearms" How can we have free speech when one company controls more than the lions share of videos.
3) Where is my privacy under Google? Would people pay for a Bing or lower level search engine to get privacy back? I think so.
These are the moral and finacial drives for one or more Google competitors. D.o.J. will not save me. Banks are still "Too big to fail" as a case in point.
"We the people" will have to do it.
people don't care enough about their privacy to change the settings, and you think they would be willing to pay? as for youtube, no other company can challenge them becuase it's not a profitable business.
So then make the platform open to all or regulate the platform
Politics will eventually ruin everything it touches, because (all) people are controlled to some extent by their prejudice - period. Perhaps AI could play a positive roll in social media, by protecting the flow of information from prejudicial censorship.
Where's the money for Alphabet and in doing the right thing? Lol.
Before watching this video, I have one word. Lobbyists
ybbok truth
Nice
that purple man is good! way better insights than scott . maybe he should do 50% of the videos in this channel
If scale is good for consumers, and CZcams adds scale to Google search, then separating Alphabet and CZcams would hurt consumers.
apple sells u a product then finds out a way to take more money from you out of the same product lol
Yay
CMO Vs CFO
Not curing death is a rational decision Scott?
Just because you don't agree with the conclusion doesn't mean it's not a rational conclusion. It might be logical and optimum, but be immoral.
Brilliant, this show sells to another business. Immediately its propoganda against why you shouldn't listen to the most powerful ideas this channel ever created.
Interesting missed predictions about Apple... missed Apple Card completely... plus all the services...
1:30 i don’t trust him right there
Google is bias, duck duck go FTW
at 3:20 ..... and God created everything.
Richard Kramer looks like Jim Carrey's relative
Is this heaven?
#WWG1WGA
Start buying those put options now.
Google Search effective? Nope. It's dumber because it has weakened boolean logic for AI that brings up dumb results. Algorithms are Google's and CZcams's weakness. I hate their monopolization. It's making things harder by overwhelm.