[zsgoldberg]

When people here read these articles, is the platforms-vs-publishers relationship top of mind for you?

I don't really know what headspace I should be in when I open these articles. I generally want to understand the underlying motivations of the publishers. How are y'all feeling?

Let's not limit it to antitrust issues since it's usually been about privacy, free speech, the rest

[Macross8299]

Meanwhile, traditional news media is currently lobbying congress to make news organizations and online publishers exempt from anti-trust law in order to secure a better negotiating position with tech companies. [0]

I don't trust them to report on tech companies objectively one bit. And why should I? They have a vested interest in presenting negative coverage.

[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/09/media/house-of-representative...

[leereeves]

That actually seems reasonable. Anti-trust laws were intended to protect consumers, not enable abuse by even bigger monopolies. An exception for colluding in negotiations with monopolies might be a good idea, and not only for media companies.

Similar to the exception that already exists for unions.

[Despegar]

After the GFC, besieged bankers had a similar sentiment about the press. How to frame it in your mind is that you're now the bankers.

Read all the threads on HN about the Boeing 737 MAX, many from the same publications writing about Big Tech like the NYT, you never see any commentary about the publications and their motives like you do in the Big Tech threads.

The Occam razor's explanation for the difference is that the reaction to critical coverage when it's about your industry will be different in a predictable way.

[malvosenior]

The Occams razor is that Facebook and Google threaten The New York Times business model where bad banking and faulty jets do not. Big media is way too involved in these stories to report them objectively.

[Despegar]

That's certainly not true for the NYT. The NYT's stock has done very well in recent years and it's solely because their digital subscription business has taken off. It's one of the few publications that doesn't really depend on Facebook and Google for revenue.

[malvosenior]

They do threaten it though. They could elevate competitors voices or choose to filter the NYT from results of weigh them lower. I'm sure social media and search both drive a huge amount of NYT traffic. The only time I ever read it is when it's linked here.

[Despegar]

Facebook already made that change a long time ago to emphasize sharing of photos, status updates, etc over news.

NYT, WaPo, WSJ have all done fine while other publications that were founded on the premise of social traffic have gone out of business.

They're destination sites and brands in and of themselves, they don't rely on third party referral traffic.

[malvosenior]

This is incorrect. I assure you they get a large porition of their traffic from referrals and Google search results (and Google News). They were literally just complaining about this yesterday:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/09/business/media/google-new...

[mncharity]

> is the platforms-vs-publishers relationship top of mind for you?

More that the press does narratives, which are often the creation of, or strongly influenced by, long-term PR campaigns.

My very fuzzy understanding is, atleast after the Microsoft-Google nonaggression pact some years ago, the largest interest pushing the anti-BigTech narrative has been Hollywood, wishing to regulate the lawless internet and reduce tech industry influence.

One thing that's puzzled me, and I'd appreciate any insight, is how Microsoft got dropped from the Big Tech set.

[Legogris]

Microsoft simply isn't a big player for the consumer/luser segment anymore when it comes to the services that tend to come up in these conversation (e-mail, social, ads, etc). For these services they're more B2B. They're not a data company like Google or Facebook.

Interesting, though, how their compliance with censoring and filtering etc in China for years barely register compared to the outrage Google gets for even preparing for it.

And thinking about it, Microsoft IS big in social with acquisitions like LinkedIn, Skype and GitHub. But no one's getting concerned or outraged on those accounts. After being the nemesis for so long, I think they have learned to play this game very well this time around.

[marssaxman]

I have wondered the same thing - Netflix is an obvious outlier among the Big 5, and Microsoft an equally obvious omission. Apparently the "FAANG" idea is a Wall Street thing, a grouping based on financial rather than technical impact.

[rchaud]

"BRICS" was a Goldman Sachs invented acronym, coined in 2002, and was frequently used by policymakers and press for at least a decade, despite nobody ever seeing common threads between the economic structures and populations of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

[charles_f]

Same. I guess it is because Microsoft is a relatively smaller company established in rural Washington and focusing its efforts on FOSS. Nothing to be worried about there.

[narag]

I'm not American (maybe better so?) but this piece sounds a lot like the author is anti-google.

Oracle is unpopular, so let's add the noodle shop to compensate. You won't like EU fines, so we say that USA should fine before. Epic photo of the noodles guy. Very nice photo of Yelp people, who wouldn't like to work there?

To be honest, I believe that Google and friends are very dangerous right now. But with all HN limitations, any discussions here is light years deeper than this fluff.

[pnathan]

I think about the lack of accountability inherent in large corporations. Tech is foregrounded in our lives right now, but it plays out in more quiet industries too.

[colpabar]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150813

[bryan_w]

Exactly! People get down right indignant if you suggest that the negative reporting on tech is a conflict of interest for old media institutions like the NYT, but turns out these institutions are just as corrupt as you would expect