[maxerickson]

A simple workaround is to regulate the collection, storage and use of personally identifiable information.

There's nothing especially horrifying about Facebook not being allowed to use demographic profile information to target advertising.

[dasmoth]

How do we regulate in a way that limits the power of the big five without also hurting small businesses? Otherwise, the end result will almost certainly be to bolster Google and Facebook.

[maxerickson]

I honestly don't care if regulation that protects consumers ends up hurting small businesses.

Perhaps something else would also need to be done about Google and Facebook having too much power, but continuing to screw over everyone else to help small businesses isn't really on my personal radar.

[idlewords]

Regulating adtech will really only hurt Google and Facebook, who are capturing all of the revenue growth.

Most kinds of limits on data retention should have no effect on small business (like the kind I run!).

[alphonsegaston]

By creating strong regulations to curb the worst practices of ad company tracking, then dismantling these monopolies the same way we did with Microsoft in the 90s.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

The regulation of Microsoft is what got us where we are today in terms of loss of privacy.

The Microsoft model was:

1) Money from selling useful software that people buy

2) The web as an information source. Apps are actually software that is (paid for and) installed

3) The PC as hub for the user's digital Life

Instead, with help from the DOJ, Microsoft lost, and now we have the Google model

1) Software and services given away as enticement for user data which is then sold to advertisers.

2) Primacy of the web app over installed apps.

3) A central service as the hub of a user's digital life.

These together have eroded privacy and user's control over their data.

[alphonsegaston]

That's an interesting point. How do you think we should go after Google and company then?

[nickpsecurity]

"The Microsoft model was:

1) Money from selling useful software that people buy

2) The web as an information source. Apps are actually software that is (paid for and) installed

3) The PC as hub for the user's digital Life"

That is not what got Microsoft where they were. Microsoft cut deals with monopoly and oligopoly providers to make their stuff defaults. They used all kinds of shady techniques to create network effects such as getting OEM's to use them by default instead of competition (consumers rarely switch). Then, their lockin due to obscure data formats and protocols made transitioning or interoperability very difficult. Like IBM and Oracle, they kept patenting things (artificial monopolies) to use to sue or force acquisitions of opponents. For open standards, they practiced "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish." These kind of techniques created a situation where customers were essentially forced to stay on or acquire their products to be part of the ecosystem which was 90% of the market or something. This got them billions of dollars plus a lot of antitrust action.

"Instead, with help from the DOJ, Microsoft lost, and now we have the Google model"

Microsoft is still one of the richest companies in existence along with IBM and Apple. These still use the old models (licensing software and suing w/ patents) plus offer stuff with the new model. It didn't go away due to regulation. There's tons of proprietary apps out there.

"1) Software and services given away as enticement for user data which is then sold to advertisers.

2) Primacy of the web app over installed apps."

Web primacy wasn't due to antitrust or anything like that. Web apps have no installation, work across devices (in theory), and update automatically. The reason native apps didn't is because of greedy companies in private sector fighting with each other more than helping each other. A regulation making a standard might have actually helped just because there would be a deployment target. The ad-driven model came from market demand where they consistently and massively chose ad-funded sites over stuff they paid for. This combined with VC money, copyright/patent monopolies, and sometimes Wall St requirements post-IPO created with private sector bribes to politicians turned that into new oligopolies of companies that are dominating certain areas such as search, email, e-commerce, payment, and social media.

So, a combination of foolish demand by markets, choices by VC's, founders wanting to be rich, CEO's doing as much monopolistic practice as possible, companies fighting instead of working on common ground, and corrupt politicians collectively led to this situation. It was improved a little bit on a few occasions by regulation but overall its impact pales in comparison to other factors.

[dasmoth]

I'm not at all confident that the Microsoft antitrust moves really did much to erode their dominance on the desktop -- rather, the desktop becoming less relevant has done that.

If anyone won from those actions, it was Google...