I guess the four tech giants are explaining themselves before a House sub-committee in reference to intentionally damaging would-be competitors.

Apparently, Zuckerberg did a bunch of ratting out of the others, maybe some sort of deflection technique.


https://video.foxnews.com/v/61762870...#sp=show-clips

Saw a bit a few minutes ago. They were bullying that Pichai guy into one word answers lol. And Zuckerberg was looking extra martian with that zoomed in webcam. There's something seriously unsettling about these tech guys. They come across as decent and unassuming but then they start talking about how Google was threatening smaller companies into choosing to either pay for placement (described as a tax for exposure) or essentially get buried by the search algorithm. And that didn't even touch on all the user data they gather and sell. They must be so calculated and ruthless.

I feel like it is pretty well known at this point, the primary means of revenue for these guys is selling user information. Ad revenue is insignificant compared to that. I feel people who do not understand this are willfully ignorant at this point.

I did see some of the witness “testimony” and questions clearly framed against them as you mentioned. Which only helps them I feel (as if they need it). Personally I think these guys just did a really good job at playing by the rules of the game. I wish I could get in on it, from a certain perspective, there is some jealousy for sure. I have no doubt they are using tactics to demolish would be competitors, but that is just speculation with no evidence to back it up. I’m curious what was presented to the house for them to decide to have this hearing.

They need to be dismantled as they have a monopoly on western culture and wield as much power of censorship as any authoritarian nation minus the threat of jailtime.

But government workers are too technologically inept to understand the problem.

I would have guessed that it's mostly from selling user data but I'd be curious to know how their revenue streams break down. You're right about them playing by the rules. There really were no rules for what was explicitly denied since it was a new technology and the FANG corps are pretty much the only ones who knew how it worked. Imagine trying to regulate a complex industry you know nothing about--futile. It reminds me of how chemists who produce PEDs for athletes have the leg up in terms of creating compounds that the WADAs and USADAs of the world don't yet have the capacity to test for.
As for the speculation about strong-arming competition, the committee claimed to have evidence from internal emails (******** talking about how IG was an emerging threat and could siphon users/traffic) as well as information from competitors. I think it was Jim Sensenbrenner who presented that while talking to Zuckerburg. But yeah, I don't know how conclusive all the evidence is or how much they can do at this stage. It's like Pandora's box has been opened.