Login

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on photog.social.
photog.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for your photos and banter. Photog first is our motto Please refer to the site rules before posting.

Administered by:

Server stats:

249
active users

photog.social: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.8

#monopolies

3 posts2 participants0 posts today
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

"Google isn’t satisfied with its monopoly on the questions we search.

Google wants to use AI to monopolize the very answers themselves.

As one Google executive recently explained: “Organizing information is clearly a trillion-dollar opportunity, but a trillion dollars is not cool anymore. What’s cool is a quadrillion dollars.”

Google plans to use AI to consume and replace the open web.

I believe demolishing independent sites like mine was Google’s first step in clearing ground so it has space to rebuild search from the ground up for an “AI-first” future.

Google envisions a future where “Google does the Googling for you,” its AI and ads do the answering – and users never need to leave Google.

Google will just source information from a handful of sources and partner websites that it controls and selects – effectively creating an information cartel.

If Google can use AI to censor a travel website from the web arbitrarily and without opportunity for appeal – it can do the same to any source of information it wants.

And American citizens and Internet users everywhere will be worse off for it.

So while you may not really care about the plight of some random travel website getting censored, everyone should care about the way Google is deploying AI to build a censorship cartel that lets it control the flow of information online.

What follows is a lengthy summary of my experiences and my opinions as an independent publisher trying to survive in a monopolist’s information economy.

To start, let me explain how we got to this point where Google has the power to do this:"

travellemming.com/perspectives

#Google#SearchEngines#AI
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

I find it astonishing how authors are so afraid that AI is going to steal their readers. If AI only generates derivative works, why are you, as a creator and the only entity capable of producing truly creative works so afraid?

Unless you believe in the fiction that you can own artificial property. In reality, once you let a work out in the world, you can't possibly expect to "own" it and control its distribution - unless you want to enforce a totalitarian dictatorship. So, I repeat, what are you so afraid of?

Unless authors start to understand that creative works can't be really protected against unauthorized copying and distribution and that copyright is a monopoly granted by States, they will continue to repeat the same mistakes, will depriving the public of access to knowledge and culture.

"In late 2024, we surveyed over 400 members of the Australian Society of Authors, the national peak body for writers and illustrators. We asked about their use of AI, their understanding of how generative models are trained, and whether they would agree to their work being used for training – with or without compensation.

79% said they would not allow their existing work to be used to train AI models, even if they were paid. Almost as many – 77% – said the same about future work.

Among those open to payment, half expected at least $A1,000 per work. A small number nominated figures in the tens or hundreds of thousands.

But the dominant response, from both established and emerging authors, was a firm “no”.

This presents a serious roadblock for those hoping publishers might broker blanket licensing agreements with AI firms. If most authors are unwilling to grant permission under any terms, then standard contract clauses or opt-in models are unlikely to deliver a practical or ethical solution."

theconversation.com/new-resear

The ConversationNew research reveals Australian authors say no to AI using their work – even if money is on the tableWriters’ concerns about AI are not only about payment; they are about consent, trust and the future of their profession.
#Australia#AI#GenerativeAI
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

COMPLETE TRAVESTY: Creativity is not an industry. Anyone who dares to say that knows nothing about art, culture, creativity, and manufacturing. You cannot manufacture creativity. Either a work is considered creative by the public and the critics or not.

Am I stealing your words in favor of a rent-seeking, money-grabbing little scheme by copying and pasting it here? Do I have to pay you a license for your fake, artificial property? And you consider yourself a representative of artists and authors?

"My colleagues and I from all sides in the House of Lords have acted where the government has refused, adding emergency transparency measures to the legislation – the data (use and access) bill – that is passing through parliament. Our amendment would allow existing copyright law to be enforced: copyright owners would understand when, where and by whom their work was being stolen to train AI. The logic being that if an AI firm has to disclose evidence of theft, it will not steal in the first place. These measures, voted for in ever-increasing numbers by lords from all parties – and notable grandees from the government’s own backbenches – were voted down by a government wielding its significant, if reluctant, majority."

theguardian.com/commentisfree/

The Guardian · We have a chance to prevent AI decimating Britain’s creative industries – but it’s slipping awayBy Beeban Kidron
#UK#RentSeeking#AI
Public
RaymondPierreL3

#CoryDoctorow at his fiery best, telling us how we got to here and why and then topping it off with ways to undo all the shitty #TechBro malignancy to bring about a better, fairer internet (as well as a better society).

Replete with real world examples of how we’ve all been ‘captured’ by ruthless individuals and what has been done so far to address the raping of our privacy and curtailment of our choices.

If you can spare a hour to watch Cory’s address at the Python Conference on ‘enshitification’ and the solutions to it, you will come away hopeful of a better tomorrow. It might also spurr you to action when you have the opportunity to make a difference

#Enshitification #TechBros #Monopolies #DigitalAge

youtu.be/ydVmzg_SJLw

YouTubeKeynote Speaker - Cory DoctorowBy PyCon US
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

"UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest healthcare conglomerate, has secretly paid nursing homes thousands in bonuses to help slash hospital transfers for ailing residents – part of a series of cost-cutting tactics that has saved the company millions, but at times risked residents’ health, a Guardian investigation has found.

Those secret bonuses have been paid out as part of a UnitedHealth program that stations the company’s own medical teams in nursing homes and pushes them to cut care expenses for residents covered by the insurance giant.

In several cases identified by the Guardian, nursing home residents who needed immediate hospital care under the program failed to receive it, after interventions from UnitedHealth staffers. At least one lived with permanent brain damage following his delayed transfer, according to a confidential nursing home incident log, recordings and photo evidence.

“No one is truly investigating when a patient suffers harm. Absolutely no one,” said one current UnitedHealth nurse practitioner who recently filed a congressional complaint about the nursing home program. “These incidents are hidden, downplayed and minimized. The sense is: ‘Well, they’re medically frail, and no one lives for ever.’”"

theguardian.com/us-news/2025/m

The Guardian · Revealed: UnitedHealth secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfersBy George Joseph
#USA#Healthcare#UnitedHealthcare
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

"In the 1960s and 1970s, a group of Chicago School economists conceived of an absurd new way to interpret competition law, which they called "the consumer welfare standard." Under this standard, the job of competition policy was to encourage monopolies to form, on the grounds that monopolies were "efficient" and would lower prices for "consumers."

The chief proponent of this standard was Robert Bork, a virulent racist whose most significant claim to fame was that he was the only government lawyer willing to help Richard Nixon illegally fire officials who wouldn't turn a blind eye to his crimes. Bork's long record of unethical behavior and scorching bigotry came back to bite him in the ass when Ronald Reagan tried to seat him on the Supreme Court, during a confirmation hearing that Bork screwed up so badly that even today, we use "borked" as a synonym for anything that is utterly fucked.

But Bork's real legacy was as a pro-monopoly propagandist, whose work helped shift how judges, government enforcers, and economists viewed antitrust law. Bork approached the text of America's antitrust laws, like the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, with the same techniques as a Qanon follower addressing a Q "drop," applying gnostic techniques to find in these laws mystical coded language that – he asserted – meant that Congress had intended for America's anti-monopoly laws to actually support monopolies.

In episode three, we explore Bork's legacy, and how it led to what Tom Eastman calls the internet of "five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of the other four." We got great interviews and old tape for this one, including Michael Wiesel, a Canadian soap-maker who created a bestselling line of nontoxic lip-balm kits for kids, only to have Amazon shaft him by underselling him with his own product."

pluralistic.net/2025/05/19/kha

pluralistic.netPluralistic: Who Broke the Internet? Part III (19 May 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
#Enshittification#IP#Copyright
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

"The point is that there were always greedy bosses, and since the turn of the century, they'd had the ability to use digital tools to enshittify their services. What changed wasn't the greed – it was the law. When Bruce Lehman disarmed every computer user, he rendered us helpless against the predatory instincts of anyone with a digital product or service, at a moment when everything was being digitized.

This week's episode recovers some of the lost history, an act I find very liberating. It's easy to feel like you're a prisoner of destiny, whose life is being shaped by vast, impersonal forces. But the enshittificatory torments of the modern digital age are the result of specific choices, made by named people, in living memory. Knowing who did this to us, and what they did, is the first step to undoing it.

In next week's episode, we'll tell you about the economic theories that created the "five giant websites filled with screenshots of the other four." We'll tell you who foisted those policies on us, and show you the bright line from them to the dominance of companies like Amazon. And we'll set up the conclusion, where we'll tell you how we'll wipe out the legacies of these monsters of history and kill the enshitternet.

Get "Understood: Who Broke the Internet?" in whatever enshittified app you get your podcasts on (or on Antennapod, which is pretty great)."

pluralistic.net/2025/05/13/ctr

pluralistic.netPluralistic: Who Broke the Internet? Part II (13 May 2025) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
#Enshittification#OpenWeb#DMCA
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

""Who Broke the Internet?" is a new podcast from CBC Understood that I host and co-wrote – it's a four-part series that explains how the enshitternet came about, and, more importantly, what we can do about it. Episode one is out this week:

cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/135

The thesis of the series – and indeed, of my life's work – is that the internet didn't turn to shit because of the "great forces of history," or "network effects," or "returns to scale." Rather, the Great Enshittening is the result of specific policy choices, made in living memory, by named individuals, who were warned at the time that this would happen, and they did it anyway. These wreckers are the largely forgotten authors of our misery, and they mingle with impunity in polite society, never fearing that someone might be sizing them up for a pitchfork.

"Who Broke the Internet?" aims to change that. But the series isn't just about holding these named people accountable for their enshittificatory deeds: it's about understanding the policies that created the enshittocene, so that we can dismantle them and build a new, good internet that is fit for purpose, namely, helping us overcome and survive environmental collapse, oligarchic control, fascism and genocide."

pluralistic.net/2025/05/08/who

CBC ListenDon't Be Evil | Understood: Who Broke the Internet? | CBC Podcasts | CBC Listen Google Search was the gold standard — a product born in a dorm room during the internet’s early, idealistic era. But when internal emails surfaced they revealed a deeper conflict inside the company: was Google making Search worse, on purpose, to boost ad revenue? Google says its changes are all about benefiting users. Critics say it’s all part of a bigger pattern — one that host Cory Doctorow calls enshittification: the slow, deliberate decay of platforms in the name of profit. Guests in this episode include Ed Zitron, Emmanuel Goldstein, Clive Thompson, and Steven Levy. 
#Enshittification#OpenWeb#Monopolies
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

"A few days ago, Federal Reserve economist economist Ricardo Marto published an important paper on what happened to the economy in the period after Covid struck. What he found, after crunching numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, is that there was massive redistribution of wealth upward, from working people to big business.

According to Marto, domestic non-financial corporate profits doubled, to $4 trillion a year. As a percentage of total economic output going to profits, they went from 13.9% to 16.2%, while the labor share modestly declined.

There are two other disturbing elements in the paper. First, these profits went to reward shareholders in the form of dividends, not to investment to build more capacity. And second, profit levels have remained elevated. Throughout the pandemic recovery period, economists were vehement that profit increases did not reflect increased concentration, and that increased profits were temporary. Yet this research shows that such assumptions were wishful thinking.

Indeed, the most serious domestic policy failure of the Biden administration was allowing their economists to aggressively avoid addressing this shift upward in wealth from working people to big business. And now let’s fast forward to the current moment. We are in a trade crisis, and this crisis has some echoes of the post-Covid supply chain mess. And I suspect Donald Trump might be repeating Biden’s mistake.

This new crisis, of course, is the one that’s been wrought by Trump’s own abrupt tariff policies."

thebignewsletter.com/p/how-mon

#Monopolies#Antitrust#Competition
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

"The day after President Donald Trump announced his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, pricing guru Craig Zawada held an urgent summit for his clients. The global economy was roiling with anxiety, and stocks were in a tailspin, but Zawada had a more hopeful message to impart: For the businesses deploying his company’s “smart pricing” software, this was a rare opportunity.

“There is perhaps more of a window to make changes to your pricing than there has been before,” Zawada said. Consumers, he explained, were bracing themselves for tariff sticker shock: “Customers expect change.”

“Now,” he said, “is the time to take advantage.”

Zawada works for PROS Holdings, a company that provides software services helping companies price their products, tailored in particular to airlines. He’s part of a cottage industry of “pricing optimization” consultants who, using lessons learned from pandemic price increases, are advising companies across industries on how to hike prices in response to tariffs or even just the threat of tariffs — and then keep them high.

Republican Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Andrew Ferguson, the nation’s top antitrust cop, has been warning companies that enforcers are prepared to take action against tariff profiteering. Yet he has effectively given the consultant class a “green light,” as one former FTC official told The Lever, by rolling back an inquiry scrutinizing their practices."

levernews.com/how-trump-is-hel

The Lever · How Trump Is Helping Price Gougers Exploit His TariffsBy Katya Schwenk
#USA#Trump#PriceGouging
Public
Miguel Afonso Caetano

"In an unprecedented move, the Japan Fair Trade Commission on Tuesday issued a cease-and-desist order against Google for violating the country's anti-monopoly law by forcing manufacturers to preinstall the company’s apps on their Android smartphones.

This is the first time that Japan has issued such an order against any of the major U.S. technology companies referred to collectively as GAFAM — Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft.

“By binding smartphone manufacturers and telecommunication carriers, Google has made it difficult for other competing search engine applications to be used on Android phones,” Saiko Nakajima, a senior investigator for digital platform operators at the commission, said.

“Google's conduct in this case has created a risk of impeding fair competition concerning transactions — thus, we have determined that this is an act in violation of the Antimonopoly Act,” she added."

japantimes.co.jp/business/2025

The Japan Times · In a first, Japan issues cease-and-desist order against GoogleBy Yukana Inoue
#Japan#Google#Android
SearchLive feeds
About