ContentID is getting EVEN MORE FUCKED than the troll in here
-
-
Welcome to WTDWTF, trolling is what we do here, everyone is a troll, &c, &c...
Don't think there's a point in explaining that, he seems to have gotten the hang of it pretty well.
Not nearly as entertaining as Blakey, but subtle and under-the-radar until he started channeling Swampie. 8/10 would argue again.
-
Are you saying that AOL is different from google in really important ways because it's exactly the same in all the really important ways?
For fuck's sake. No.Here are some important differences:
- Google has thus far demonstrated a good sense of looking to the future and moving into new areas. I don't remember AOL really doing anything to rock the boat ever except for their eventual switch from a by-the-minute cost to unlimited access. In contrast, you have Google starting out as just a search engine, but moving in to ads on independently-hosted webpages, email, video, maps, smartphones, cars, etc., much of which it rocked the industry on or bought the company that rocked the industry on. AOL has its fingers in a few things, but it became late to the game instead of ahead of the game as the 90s wore on; Google is still ahead of the game. (One exception might be MapQuest, which they bought in 2000; for quite some time, that of course was the go-to mapping service.)
- The internet as an industry is much more mature than it was during AOL's reign. It's still fast-moving and there's room for startups to become big and such, but one of the things that killed AOL was that most of the people who are on the internet now never needed to move from AOL to something else because they were never on AOL in the first place. If we assume that most internet users default to Google for search currently, for another search engine to come in and trounce AOL will require many current Google users to switch.
- As mentioned, the thing that made AOL have almost no chance was the arrival of cable internet. For someone to switch away from Google search, someone will have to either come up with either a better search engine or come up with some Internet2 that is way better (e.g. far faster) but you can't access the current Internet1 from without paying extra money. (Or I guess Google could get far worse, or start charging or something.) It's the latter that is how AOL lost, but that seems extraordinarily unlikely to occur again. The former will be extraordinary difficult; we're well into the tail of diminishing returns, and new players are going to find it extremely hard to compete with the money and data that Google has available.
Now, that discussion focuses on search, and the story is a lot less extreme for something like YouTube -- but much of it still applies.
-
Meh, make an argument that can stick in my country. Until you do, fuck off.
Your moralist bullshit is suspect at best, and you've got literally nothing else.
I really hope you don't actually work with systems that need logic applied to them.
That would suck for everyone involved.
-
By the way, I'm not saying Google will remain a powerhouse forever, because it obviously won't. But I think the time until it isn't will be multiple decades.
-
For fuck's sake. No.
Here are some important differences:
Google has thus far demonstrated a good sense of looking to the future and moving into new areas. I don't remember AOL really doing anything to rock the boat ever except for their eventual switch from a by-the-minute cost to unlimited access. In contrast, you have Google starting out as just a search engine, but moving in to ads on independently-hosted webpages, email, video, maps, smartphones, cars, etc., much of which it rocked the industry on or bought the company that rocked the industry on. AOL has its fingers in a few things, but it became late to the game instead of ahead of the game as the 90s wore on; Google is still ahead of the game. (One exception might be MapQuest, which they bought in 2000; for quite some time, that of course was the go-to mapping service.)
The internet as an industry is much more mature than it was during AOL's reign. It's still fast-moving and there's room for startups to become big and such, but one of the things that killed AOL was that most of the people who are on the internet now never needed to move from AOL to something else because they were never on AOL in the first place. If we assume that most internet users default to Google for search currently, for another search engine to come in and trounce AOL will require many current Google users to switch.
As mentioned, the thing that made AOL have almost no chance was the arrival of cable internet. For someone to switch away from Google search, someone will have to either come up with either a better search engine or come up with some Internet2 that is way better (e.g. far faster) but you can't access the current Internet1 from without paying extra money. (Or I guess Google could get far worse, or start charging or something.) It's the latter that is how AOL lost, but that seems extraordinarily unlikely to occur again. The former will be extraordinary difficult; we're well into the tail of diminishing returns, and new players are going to find it extremely hard to compete with the money and data that Google has available.Now, that discussion focuses on search, and the story is a lot less extreme for something like YouTube -- but much of it still applies.
I disagree with bullet point 1. Bullet point 2 is a tautology, and bullet point 3 still hasn't destroyed AOL, now has it?
-
Meh, make an argument that can stick in my country. Until you do, fuck off.
You seriously cannot be more wrong. It's not about content.Your content strategy has completely and totally failed.
I hope you aren't in charge of anything important.
"AOL has fallen, so Google and YouTube will fail too".
"Look, it was fucking years ago, the landscape has changed, the amount of people you'd need to convince has risen by orders of magnitude, and unlike for original content providers, you'd need to move them at the same time or they create a positive feedback loop holding each other hostage"
"YOU'RE WRONG THE CONTENT STRATEGY HAS FAILED THE GREAT SEARCH SHOWDOWN WAS LOST ALL PRAISE RANDOM RANDOM SPAGHETTI JAM NOODLE"As for the argument, you have many more yet to respond to, and I'm not even sure what you're arguing.
-
By the way, I'm not saying Google will remain a powerhouse forever, because it obviously won't. But I think the time until it isn't will be multiple decades.
This is where we differ the most. You think that google's behavior is bad now and needs a spanking because you think that google will be around for multiple decades.
I think it doesn't matter because google will be irrelevant in less than 5 years.
-
Are you still talking?
-
I think it doesn't matter because google will be irrelevant in less than 5 years.
I guess we should bookmark your post for attention in early 2020, then...
-
Go for it. I'll either be right or wrong. This forum isn't the first place I've made that assertion.
-
I disagree with bullet point 1
I'm glad you put so much thought into your disagreement.Bullet point 2 is a tautology
I think you might need to look up the word tautology.and bullet point 3 still hasn't destroyed AOL, now has it?
You have a pretty weak definition of "destroyed"; its annual revenue in 2013 was $2.32 billion; that's less gross revenue than YouTube alone brought in for Google, and about 1/25th of Google's revenue overall. [2013 figures, which are the latest I found for any of them]Cable internet (and other factors) meant that AOL went from being a dominant player in the online world to a "are they still in business?" company.
-
I think it doesn't matter because google will be irrelevant in less than 5 years.
Want to make a bet? I'll put up, say, $100. I wonder if there are reputable online escrow services...
-
I disagree with bullet point 1.
Not an argument. I don't really agree either on Google having "a good sense of looking to the future" - they just have so much money they're throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. It still works for them, though, and for the past few years they've been expanding fairly nicely.
Bullet point 2 is a tautology
Not an argument. The Internet is, in fact, a pretty stable landscape right now. There's a bit of room for new companies, but it's quickly running out. It's no longer the dot-com bubble where everyone and their dog had a web-based company, now it's pretty much all the old players and some fads once in a while that shine bright and die fast.
and bullet point 3 still hasn't destroyed AOL, now has it?
Not an argument. Actually, what the fuck are you even arguing? That AOL just won't die? Isn't that the exact opposite of what you were arguing just a fucking second ago?
Three strikes, you're out.
-
-
I don't really agree either on Google having "a good sense of looking to the future" - they just have so much money they're throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
To some extent, I think that's what looking to the future means. Google might be taking it to an extreme (perhaps even reckless extent), but that's basically what long-term R&D is.
-
I think we're done here.
You clowns don't really want to have a debate. You just want to internet-rage about stuff.
Have fun with that,
-
Meh, make an argument that can stick in my country. Until you do, fuck off.
Your moralist bullshit is suspect at best, and you've got literally nothing else.
I really hope you don't actually work with systems that need logic applied to them.
That would suck for everyone involved.
...and here we are. Essentially: "STFU because you're wrong" without much to back it up.
I see your account is several weeks old. @Maciejasjmj has been here years, has code he's analyzed properly here in this forum (old and new), and I've even had some good debates with him myself. Telling him to "fuck off" without much offered in the way of proof or good arguments, and on such a noob account, is a fast way to make many of us veterans look at you and say WTF.
For all the trolling that's done on here, most of it is clever, amusing or both - and done by people who have also demonstrated they know what they're talking about. That's why the occasional blow-up in arguments is tolerated with them. Yours is none of the above. While I cannot presume to speak for others here, I consider your attitude not welcome here.
-
This forum isn't the first place I've made that assertion.
-
To some extent, I think that's what looking to the future means. Google might be taking it to an extreme (perhaps even reckless extent), but that's basically what long-term R&D is.
That doesn't require much of a "sense", though. Just wads and wads of cash and just enough motivation not to spend it all on hookers and blow.
Seems to be working pretty well for them, though. Well, except for the whole hookers and blow thing.
-
I know! I'll go to YouTube and just randomly search for stuff
My 6 year old exactly does that ... she open the yt app on the tablet and watches stuff.
When was the last time you looked at a link and thought to yourself, "Hmmm. I'm pretty sure that's a video. But it doesn't say youtube at the front. I guess I won't click it."?
Doesn't matter. YT is the biggest party around. Think of oneboxing here ... there are so many apps offering easy viewing of uploading to YT. I can't remember the last time I clicked a link to bring me to YT to play a video.
-
I'm shaken right to my core by the fact that you think my new account contains less accurate information than an older account.
I hope that your idiotic appeals to authority work well for you in your life.
-
The entry point for every youtube session is always a link to something from an external source.
No it isn't. Certainly not if you consider the google search home as a yt starting point too ... like you should.
-
I hope that your idiotic appeals to authority work well for you in your life.
No appeal to authority, just observation and my conclusions of such. But that's what your type does - change the context and make that wrong to try to make the person wrong.
Thank you for demonstrating my point for me.
-
-
he context and make that wrong to try to make the person wrong.
Thank you for demonstrating my point for me.
What the fuck are you on about? You literally just told me off about how @Maciejasjmj has been around for years but I have only been around for months. You just said that. It's a string of words that literally just got vomited on to your keyboard.
Do you not understand how this is a comical fallacy in which you appeal to authority? Are you that stupid?
What the fuck is wrong with you? You did make an appeal to an inappropriate authority, it is a logical fallacy, and you are painfully wrong here, sir.
-
A monopoly exists when a business has 100% market share, or at least enough to raise prices on their own due to lack of competition. Not really the case here...as they do not charge anything...
No. Monopoly doesn't require 100% market share. Having 75% market share could be enough if the other 25% is for example divided by many small players. Strictly speaking monopoly would be 100%. Others configurations are oligopolies.
But in real life economics we speak of monopoly if one party has such a power over the market, mostly by the market share, that it can set the price and other parameters without taking the competition into account. Other parameters that make up the sale could include things like service, e.g. a monopolist is not pressured to offer quality after sales service because people can't run to a competitor.
-
But they are not a monopoly.
The usual way the laws in this area are phrased is in terms of monopoly market power, i.e., where the regulated entity has the ability to impose their terms on the market without particular regard to what competitors might do. The laws concerned don't say that it is illegal to be a monopoly, but that if a company is, it is subject to additional restrictions on what it might do. That the laws concerned are necessary was learned the hard way back in the 19th and earth 20th centuries, and there's no reason to believe that they're magically unnecessary because of “teh intarwebbz”. People are people, markets are markets, monopolies are monopolies.
-
You literally just told me off about how @Maciejasjmj has been around for years but I have only been around for month
And you assume authority without reading the rest of the sentence (heaven forbid you actually assimilate a complete thought):
has code he's analyzed properly here in this forum (old and new), and I've even had some good debates with him myself.
That's what he's done over the years.
While you continue to misinterpret and selectively criticize non-points.
I don't know you, except for what I've seen in this thread. I don't like you. You haven't earned the benefit of the doubt.
We're done here.
Note to self: stop feeding the trolls...
-
Do you not understand how this is a comical fallacy in which you appeal to authority? Are you that stupid?
At least it's not an ad hominem, like, uh,...all with her not really being all that good of a musician to begin with.
Oh.
-
No. Monopoly doesn't require 100% market share. Having 75% market share could be enough if the other 25% is for example divided by many small players. Strictly speaking monopoly would be 100%. Others configurations are oligopolies.
That the laws concerned are necessary was learned the hard way back in the 19th and earth 20th centuries, and there's no reason to believe that they're magically unnecessary because of “teh intarwebbz”.
Even the courts trying to figure what constitutes a monopoly struggle: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm
The conclusion:
Monopoly power entails both greater and more durable power over price than mere market power and serves as an important screen for section 2 cases. As a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power. If a firm has maintained a market share in excess of two-thirds for a significant period and the firm's market share is unlikely to be eroded in the near future, the Department believes that such facts ordinarily should establish a rebuttable presumption that the firm possesses monopoly power. The Department is not likely to forgo defining the relevant market or calculating market shares in section 2 monopolization and attempt cases, but will use direct evidence of anticompetitive effects when warranted and will not rely exclusively on market shares in concluding that a firm possesses monopoly power. [Emphasis mine.]
-
You clowns don't really want to have a debate.
Look, you went from
Artist wants free, unlimited access to distribution. Google says, no. If you are going to be popular enough to get on our radar, you are costing us money. We want our cut.
Artist says, "No thanks."
Google says, "Okay, we are going to fucks you ups, Lebowski."
What's the problem?
"what Google does is totally not evil and morally fine and Zoe Keating sucks anyway so who cares",
Sign on the dotted line or go get someone else to pay your distribution costs. Google is paying for her distribution.
through "well she's costing them money and they've been so nice for providing her a free place to host her content and not taking anything for it except that 66% cut on ads that cover bandwidth cost a million times over and her fans coming on YT so they're really the good guys"
Google already had a piece of the action, now they want a bigger piece, now they want your whole ass. Whatever. Doesn't matter.
through "well nothing's free except YouTube is allegedly a free service but if you're an artist you're obviously rolling in money so Google should get a cut"
You seem to be under the severely mistaken impression that a) people go to YouTube to discover content,
through "there's no way people browse YouTube's front page or follow links on the side because I don't do that so nobody else does except for all the people who chimed in"
If google were hiding search results and forcing you to actually be on the youtube platform to find her videos, I might have a sliver of sympathy for your monopolist argument. But that's not the case.
through "if Google were directing people to YouTube they might, just might be somewhat monopolistic oh wait they do never mind"
So is it fair for me to characterize your position thus: "It's unethical to be the best at whatever it is you are currently doing."?
through "YouTube's the best so they can do whatever the fuck they want to even though the antitrust laws are there for a reason but who cares"
I have access to data about how people use YouTube that I, unfortunately, can't share because the data belongs to a former employer and was paid for by a client.
through "I know a lot of secret stuff, there's probably also an Area 51 floor plan and 9/11 scenario in there too, but I just can't say"
Does Apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
through "hurr durr I don't know what a monopoly or a market is but whatever it is it sounds bad so Google's not it"
But there was a time before google. Do you remember that? When AOL, Lycos, and Yahoo! were really relevant?
through "okay so maybe they're big but 20 years ago there were companies which aren't there anymore so obviously Google will fall"
The judge was talking about a definition. I don't have a problem with it other than the fact that you are using the definition to make being classified as a monopoly an actual crime.
through "monopoly is not a crime! (nobody was arguing that, but I'll shout that anyway)"
Are you saying that AOL is different from google in really important ways because it's exactly the same in all the really important ways?
through "AOL is the same as Google in really important ways except for all those ways in which it's not the same which I hereby deem unimportant"
I think it's inevitable that google gets disrupted. But I don't think that's because economics. I'm not that smrt. It's because people. They do things. Then they do different things.
through... no, I'm not even sure what kind of a brain fart you had there, but "Google shall fall"
You seriously cannot be more wrong. It's not about content.Your content strategy has completely and totally failed.
through "websites which serve content are not about content"
Meh, make an argument that can stick in my country. Until you do, fuck off.
through "you have no arguments!" (because at that point I'm not sure what I'm arguing against, but even then you haven't meaningfully responded to any)
I disagree with bullet point 1. Bullet point 2 is a tautology, and bullet point 3 still hasn't destroyed AOL, now has it?
through "this is wrong. Yep. No, I don't know why or what either, why do you ask? Also AOL is still alive except it's fallen just like Google will fall except it's still alive"
I think it doesn't matter because google will be irrelevant in less than 5 years.
through "I'm fucking Nostradamus now"
Go for it. I'll either be right or wrong.
through "okay maybe not"
I think we're done here.
You clowns don't really want to have a debate. You just want to internet-rage about stuff.
up to "fuck you all I WIN".
And you're calling others out on logical fallacies.
-
make an argument that can stick in my country
This is the internet, the World Wide Web. This forum and his residents span multiple continents. Get used to it.
-
This is the internet, the World Wide Web. This forum and his residents span multiple continents. Get used to it.
+1
-
At least it's not an ad hominem, like, uh,
I think we're done here.
You clowns don't really want to have a debate. You just want to internet-rage about stuff.
Google will get disrupted. Google will become irrelevant. Do you agree or not?
You are a complete dolt if you disagree.
Are you seriously fucked in the brain or something? Are you now going to argue that being successful is a crime?
Slinging insults is one thing. Replacing arguments with insults and baseless assertions is another.
-
We should start a new round of Euro-Murican bashing. Those are always fun. Maybe we can combine gun laws and social welfare in one discussion?
-
We should start a new round of Euro-Murican bashing. Those are always fun. Maybe we can combine gun laws and social welfare in one discussion?
FREE GUNS FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED!
-
FREE GUNS FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED THAT SIGN THE GOD DOESN'T EXIST PETITION!
That should do it ...
-
@Maciejasjmj has totally in no way misrepresented anything that I've said on this topic.
-
Quotes attached. You even get the nifty "unroll full context" feature. And there's primary source right above.
No worries, they're not retarded, they can form they own conclusions.
-
Honestly, I don't understand you.
I just suggested that your collection of cherry-picked, out of context quotes is a problem because it doesn't represent my position very well.
And your response is, "Quotes attached."
Okay, buddy. Good for you.
-
@Maciejasjmj has totally in no way misrepresented anything that I've said on this topic.
Unlike you, of course.So is it fair for me to characterize your position thus: "It's unethical to be the best at whatever it is you are currently doing."?
@glathull said:Does Apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
@glathull said:Are you saying that AOL is different from google in really important ways because it's exactly the same in all the really important ways?
Oh.(And those are just from your responses to me!)
And of course if I were to list the things I've said you've ignored, I'd be up all night.
-
You do realize that those are actual questions, right? I asked you questions.
-
The key about the whole question thing is the question mark at the end of everything you have quoted.
-
You do realize that those are actual questions, right? I asked you questions.
Only because I quoted only part of what you said. Let's look in more detail. Emphasis mine.So is it fair for me to characterize your position thus: "It's unethical to be the best at whatever it is you are currently doing."?
I can't imagine that's what you are actually saying, but it's what it sounds like you are saying
But by that time, I had already put forth my position:Like, IANAL and so I don't want to get into whether I think that this behavior is actually illegal, but I view it basically as tying.
In other words, I had already explained my position was that the abuse of their monopoly in a tying arrangement was what I found unethical. Saying that it seems that I was arguing that being good at what you do is unethical is misrepresenting my position. (Or else it's having the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader.)Does Apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
Those are all questions, technically. But prior to that I had said:Is this a problem?
"Monopoly" doesn't mean "the only game in town"; it means in a very dominant position. Which, at least if you ask me, YouTube is. (YT is the source of something around 15% of internet traffic. What are its competitors? According to the same article, Twich is ~1.35%. Vimeo is well under 1%.I can't even find percentages for a couple of the other competitors. The closest competitor I could find is Facebook, with about 3%. It is highly likely that YouTube has 2-3 times the traffic of all its competitors combined; if you say that Facebook isn't even a direct competitor, which is at least slightly reasonable, it's probably more like 7x.)
and you acknowledged:
@glathull said:See, this is what I was trying to narrow down by asking what exactly it is that people here think youtube has a monopoly on. @EvanED was willing to reasonably limit his claims to a specific thing.
and only after that point put forth the iPhone question, later saying
@glathull said:Hey, just trying to get a read here on what exactly it is that you think is a monopoly.
even though I had already told you that.This is a less extreme version of the phenomenon in the next quote:
Oh my shit. Are you saying that AOL had stuffs?
Those are technically questions, but they're "have you stopped beating your wife?" sorts of questions that are clearly borne out of a gross misunderstanding of what I said, deliberate or otherwise, and as a result I think it's is perfectly reasonable to characterize them as misrepresenting what I said.Are you saying that AOL had things like user-generated content?
Are you saying that AOL is different from google in really important ways because it's exactly the same in all the really important ways?
Holy shit. This is a new level of wrong.
-
-
I just suggested that your collection of cherry-picked, out of context quotes is a problem because it doesn't represent my position very well.
That's why I also said
You even get the nifty "unroll full context" feature.
and if that's not enough, you even get
primary source right above.
exactly to stop you from doing the obvious idiocy of accusing me of cherry-picking quotes. Didn't work, but hey, I tried.
-
-
Is it? I'd call that an oxymoron.
Pretty sure it's a tautology (which always holds true - you're always either right or wrong, at least under basic logic - unlike an oxymoron, which always holds false).
Unless you were going for a joke I didn't get, in which case go ahead, I've held that badge off for way too long.
The key about the whole question thing is the question mark at the end of everything you have quoted.
Because obviously every sentence ending in a question mark is a question demanding an answer. Like "who cares?" or "are you fucking retarded?".
-
Tautologies are self-reinforcing, redundant. Oxymorons are a juxtapositioning of two oppisites.
Escalation of commitment - Wikipedia
