Content warning thread 12/
An acquaintance who I conversed with when the story broke also shares this view. And at the same time, they don’t. Sure, break up #Amazon, and *sure,* break up #Meta. But Google? Google’s products – its ad-tech stack, its search engine, and YouTube – are integral to not just how the web’s financed, but how it functions. You can’t just break up #Google – it’s exceptional. And if you do, us end-users downstream will suffer.
Content warning thread 13/
How? Well, the argument they put forward, as I understood it, was that a smaller, more competitive ad-tech market, where Google is not the only marketplace, where Google is not the only buyer and seller, would give site owners less of a cut of the ad-revenue made. Therefore, there would be more ads on websites to make up for this. Never mind the fact that Big Tech already skims 51% off of every ad dollar. Somehow, a small-fry ad-tech company is going to withhold even more than that.
Content warning thread 14/
Now, don’t get them wrong, they are not one to blindly defend Big Tech. But their argument, no matter how deep the hypotheticals go, is based on a lie that monopolists have always told: that services like Google Search and YouTube cannot function efficiently, cheaply, and at scale with the government getting in the way. You can’t have YouTube without Big Tech, therefore, we should just let them get on with it.
Content warning thread 15/
It’s not just that we wouldn’t have #YouTube – they argued that YouTube’s breakup would cause a #LostMedia *avalanche.* Despite the archival tools at our disposal to save YouTube videos, many of us just… wouldn’t? “Wouldn’t,” in this context, I assume to be the same “wouldn’t” that assumes most people won’t donate to #Wikipedia, and gives no explanation as to why the site remains adless to this day.
Content warning thread 16/
To believe this, and thus believe that #Google is exceptional and shouldn’t be broken up (at least not right away) is to misunderstand the lessons that the history of antitrust law can teach us. Doctorow’s latest nonfiction book, The Internet Con, gives us a masterclass on these lessons in its first chapter:
https://brologue.net/2023/12/31/users-arent-free-until-big-tech-is-wee/
A panel on the histories of IBM and AT&T doesn’t come amiss, either:
Content warning thread 17/
When you can fit all the leaders of industry around a table, what you have is a cartel that can move swiftly and with little friction. *That’s* #monopoly. But when your industry leaders are a hundred smaller companies, you’ve got a cacophony. They will be too busy disciplining each other with competition to agree on what they should be lobbying for.
Content warning thread 18/
In all, the debate’s premise was extremely important – we *should* be concerned with how a Google breakup could go wrong – but I just don’t buy the idea that an accountable ad-tech industry would make the web even more riddled with ads than it is right now. I just wish I could’ve said it like this at the time…
Content warning thread 19/Moderation in early MMORPGs
Next – most Pluralistic posts end with a trio of ‘hey look at this’ links. One recent link is a retrospective on griefing culture in MMO spaces:
https://www.raphkoster.com/2024/08/07/the-neverending-griefing-discussion/
These old games were some of the first online 3D games to try and address a fundamental content moderation dilemma – “How do we allow users to express themselves freely and disincentivise behaviour that sours the experience for other users?” We can learn from their post-mortems.
Content warning thread 20/
@raphkoster, a game designer known for his work on MMORPGs Ultima Online and EverQuest, makes a salient point about “player governance.” Although Reddit and Discord are centralised platforms, they do offer their users a lot more freedom over how communities are constructed. Everyone is not clumped in with everyone else on Discord – this lets users create their own private spaces, or “dark corners” as Doctorow describes them:
Content warning thread 21/
Content moderation has no silver bullets nor golden hammers, and where platforms claim it is a continuing process, we find that their idea of progress is glacial. The early days of UO saw players moderate each other using reputation systems. Think of the seeding/leeching numbers on magnet links, to wit: if you torrent something, and don’t continue after you’ve fully downloaded it, you’re a literal leech – you’ve slurped up your download, and gave nothing back*:
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/a-brief-history-of-murder-in-ultima-online
Content warning thread 22/
#Twitter and MMOs share common ground in the fact that everyone gets clumped in with everyone else. Koster’s articles invite juxtaposition to Elon Musk’s laissez-faire approach to moderation on Twitter. His idea of free speech is being able to non-consensually thrust shitty opinions into the faces of folks who *didn’t fucking ask;* regular users are deprived of power, because “that’s the admin’s job,” and, well, the admin *didn’t fucking care.*
Content warning thread 21.1a/continuing the leech/seed metaphor
(And, like a tree bearing fruit, if you seed your torrents, then every time that Ratio field in your torrent tracker increments a whole integer, someone else gets a seed to plant their own tree; you've made one whole copy of that torrent and passed it onto someone else.)
