You Have To Distort The Facts Pretty Badly To Argue That Google & Facebook Are Worse For Consumers Than AT&T

from the just-sayin' dept

We've had our run-ins with Jonathan Taplin before. The quintessential OMYAC of the legacy entertainment industry, who is so obsessed with the nefarious things he insists Google and Facebook are doing (even though he's often flat out wrong), is back in the pages of the NY Times, arguing that regulators shouldn't be so concerned about AT&T, when they should be attacking Google and Facebook instead.

Taplin kicks it off by jumping on Mark Cuban's ridiculous comments from last week saying that AT&T should be able to buy Time Warner so that it can "compete" against Google and Facebook, and then takes it to an even more ridiculous level. The crux of Taplin's argument: Google and Facebook are big, and thus bad, and need antitrust treatment.
Look at the numbers. Alphabet (the parent company of Google) and Facebook are among the 10 largest companies in the world. Alphabet alone has a market capitalization of around $550 billion. AT&T and Time Warner combined would be about $300 billion.
Yup. They're big companies -- and certainly, like with all big companies, we should be wary about how they might abuse their powers. But big, by itself, isn't automatically bad. And the nature of antitrust is not that big is bad, but that abusing monopoly power is bad. And Taplin has no way to show either (1) monopoly power or (2) abusive behavior, so he just starts throwing numbers.
Alphabet has an 83 percent share of the mobile search market in the United States and just under 63 percent of the US mobile phone operating systems market. AT&T has a 32 percent market share in mobile phones and 26 percent in pay TV. The combined AT&T-Time Warner will have $8 billion in cash but $171 billion of net debt, according to the research company MoffettNathanson. Compare that to Alphabet’s balance sheet, with total cash of $76 billion and total debt of about $3.94 billion.
Nice cherry picking, Jonathan! The real scam in fake antitrust complaints is trying to define the markets in a way that looks much worse than it really is. Notice that Taplin focuses on "mobile search" (random?) as the market for Google and "mobile phones" for the market for AT&T. But he leaves out the simple facts: if you need an internet connection, in many cases AT&T is either your only option or one of two options. And if you do that, AT&T gets to see everything you do. And switching broadband providers or mobile phone providers is a complicated and often expensive process. Switching a search engine... is not.

Then, to get to the question of "bad behavior," Taplin falls back on the silly line that because Google and Facebook have made a lot of money, and his buddies in legacy entertainment companies have been making a lot less money, that somehow Google and Facebook have unfairly taken money from his industry. That's just silly.
In the past decade, an enormous reallocation of revenue of perhaps $50 billion a year has taken place, with economic value moving from creators of content to owners of monopoly platforms.

I reached this conclusion from the following statistics: Since 2000, recorded music revenues in the United States have fallen to $7.2 billion per year from $19.8 billion. Home entertainment video revenue fell to $18 billion in 2014 from $24.2 billion in 2006. United States newspaper ad revenue fell to $23.6 billion in 2013 from $65.8 billion in 2000.

And yet, by every available metric, people are consuming more music, video, news and books. During that same period, Google’s revenue grew to $74.5 billion from $400 million.
Sing it with me, folks: correlation is not causation. After all, the number of works of visual art copyrighted in the US similarly has an inverse correlation to the number of females in NY who slipped or tripped to their death (really!). It doesn't mean it's a causal relationship where more of one means less of the other.

The reason that Google and Facebook are making lots of money is because they're offering a product that people want and they're doing it for free and have come up with business models that work. The reason legacy entertainment companies are flailing (and, realistically, only some of them are), is because they tried to stick with their old business model that focused on basically ignoring or mocking and attacking competition from new sources.

The problem, in short: Taplin's whole world revolved around elitism and gatekeepers. The business models he celebrates are gatekeeper business models -- the ones that keep out the riff raff and the people that Taplin likes to insult because he thinks their "art" isn't good enough to be seen by the world. The world of the internet is the opposite. It's about enabling anyone to be a creator, and to open up new avenues to create, to share, to promote, to distribute, to build a fan base and to monetize. Those were all functions that Taplin and his friends used to control, with a strict lock on the gate, allowing them to artificially inflate the prices. When the new platforms came on the market and democratized every bit of the process of creating/distributing content, suddenly the "deal" offered by the gatekeepers didn't look so good. And that's why those busineses have struggled.

And it's why, comparatively speaking, most of the public likes companies like Google and Facebook, while they hate AT&T. Find me a list of consumer satisfaction or most admired companies where AT&T outranks either of the other ones. Antitrust should be about protecting consumers -- and the public is pretty happy with the services it gets from Google and Facebook... but not so much with AT&T.

But, of course, to Taplin, it all comes back to piracy, because he's absolutely sure that's why everyone uses Google and Facebook, even though he's wrong.
Every pirated music video or song posted on YouTube or Facebook robs the creators of income, and YouTube in particular is dominated by unlicensed content. Google’s YouTube has an over 55 percent market share in the streaming audio business and yet provides less than 11 percent of the streaming audio revenues to the content owners and creators. But Facebook, which refuses to enter into any licensing agreement on music or video, is challenging YouTube in the free online video and music world.
As we discussed a few months ago, when you look at the actual data, only 2% of music video views on YouTube are unauthorized. 2%. So, no, YouTube is not "dominated by unlicensed content." That's simply and utterly false. And, no, even those unauthorized videos are not "robbing creators of income." Many smart creators these days are using YouTube as a platform to get more fans and build a bigger support base, which they can take to platforms like Patreon or Kickstarter, rather than having to give up everything to sign with a major label run by one of Taplin's friends.

I recognize that Taplin's friends have struggled to understand and adapt to this new world. And I understand that they want to lash out at the big companies like Google and Facebook that have helped make this world a reality. But why does the NY Times keep letting him publish blatantly factually false information? Oh, and the kicker? After a long rant that is full of misleading buillshit... he asks for "an honest national conversation."
Perhaps in January we can have an honest national conversation on monopoly and our future.
If we were to have an honest conversation, it would have to leave out Taplin's lies.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 11:20am

    'Conversation', you know, when one person does all the talking and the other person shuts up and listens

    Perhaps in January we can have an honest national conversation on monopoly and our future.

    From the sound of it he wants an 'honest conversation' in the same way that those aiming to undermine encryption do, which is to say 'I speak, you accept anything I say at face value and agree'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 12:52pm

      Re: 'Conversation', you know, when one person does all the talking and the other person shuts up and listens

      At least it is less condescending than the "adult conversations" on how we have to backdoor everything or else we are all going to die.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 4:36pm

      Re: 'Conversation', you know, when one person does all the talking and the other person shuts up and listens

      'Start a conversation'

      'Raise awareness'

      The two great slacktivist statements of our age.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    WhySingleOutATT, 16 Dec 2016 @ 12:52pm

    All of them need better scrutiny

    All of them need better scrutiny.

    Why single out AT&T when Google, Facebook and AT&T could use some FBI agents working within their ranks to bring out the documents that show they are all operating in bad faith.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:22pm

    Who Cares...

    about which company is the worst? They are all going above and beyond to screw consumers in pursuit of the all mighty dollar.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:25pm

      Re: Who Cares...

      or the pursuit of working with illegal elements of the government to hand over data bypassing 4th amendment protections!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:32pm

    "You Have To Distort The Facts Pretty Badly..."

    No problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:48pm

    AT&T should be able to buy Time Warner so that it can "compete" against Google and Facebook

    They have a funny way of competing, buy up a legacy content creating and owning company to compete against companies that are services whereby anybody can publish content. If AT&T really wanted to compete against those companies they would eliminate data caps, and invest in server farms, for content distribution and provide people with better publishing platforms than Google does, when they could reclaim the advertising revenue that they are losing. The part of competing that they would find difficult is letting content creators keep their copyrights, and the ability to move their content to a different platform if they wanted to.

    Trying to buy up what is rapidly becoming a minor player in content creation is not the way tp compete with companies that only provide services to content creators. Also, giving up on the data delivery business is to hand control over content delivery to others, who have decided that they will charge the content providers to deliver streaming data.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:51pm

    Sing it with me, folks: correlation is not causation. After all, the number of works of visual art copyrighted in the US similarly has an inverse correlation to the number of females in NY who slipped or tripped to their death (really!). It doesn't mean it's a causal relationship where more of one means less of the other.

    In this particular case, though, there absolutely is a causal relationship. Technology companies are out-competing them by having a better product, and are ending up eating their lunch.

    Thing is, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. Sucks to be the guys who failed to compete, but that's their problem. They have no right to make it Google's problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Vidiot (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 2:22pm

      Re:

      And I fully expect that our incoming cabal, known to eschew government interference (like antitrust) and sing the praises of the free market, will nonetheless fall in line with these non-causative correlates... especially considering their demonstrated sympathies for the legacy-IP crowd.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    CharlesGrossman (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:53pm

    All News is Fake

    This is a perfect example of why the fuss over "fake news" is so laughable. Here is an op-ed piece in the New York Times by an apparently respected pundit, as full of garbage as the worst "fake news" clickbait.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeremy2020 (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:57pm

    "Perhaps in January we can have an honest national conversation on monopoly and our future."

    So many companies hoping Trump gives them a bailout. Long live corporate welfare on the taxpayers dime.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 2:20pm

    If there's only one, it's not an option.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Espryon (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 2:20pm

    AT&T hasn't caused an election to be shifted because of the availability and volume of fake news on facebook and google search results. I hate AT&T as much as the next nerd here but, I also realize Donald Trump is most likely the president because of how little Google and Facebook care about the quality of their products vs the ability to profit off of those products.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      David (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 4:19pm

      Re: Facebook, Google changed the election == BS

      The issues are clear and yet you jump into tinfoil hat land without addressing the point in question (ATT/TWC merger should be allowed because Google/Facebook are bigger and take revenue from his friends).

      It appears to be true that Facebook had some dubious solution in their attempt to replicate the AOL experience. Google however does searches and ad services. Yet you blame them for the idiots that voted for Trump?

      Show me the data that Trump voters would have voted Democratic without fake news. You cannot, because they will believe anything that aligns with their twisted world view. They routinely don't believe the truth.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Espryon (profile), 17 Dec 2016 @ 1:36am

        Re: Re: Facebook, Google changed the election == BS

        Theres no conspiracy here. TIME Magazine and 60 Minutes interviewed the people in X-Soviet Countries (US along the border with Russia) and some media companies in the US and how they created fake news because it would generate increased traffic to their website and enable profiteering off of advertisements and traffic. There's no conspiracy that people were misinformed by these fake news sites and it enabled Trump to get elected because of the massive mistrust in the establishment media in the US. People found a way to fill that void, along with it being profitable to fake news organizations. Google and Facebook noticed this and did nothing because it was profitable, its their fault as much as it is people who're responsible for informing themselves with news that is accurately sourced.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 20 Dec 2016 @ 6:03am

          Re: Re: Re: Facebook, Google changed the election == BS

          Assume you're right: what are they supposed to do about it? Mike wrote an excellent post earlier about how FB plans to call out BS news without blocking it. I predict that'll run into trouble as people argue over what constitutes real and fake news based on their partisan preferences.

          So, then, who gets to be the Decider, the curator who proclaims that "this news" is good and the source trustworthy, and that "that news" is bad and the source very dodgy? There's your problem.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 3:35pm

    Oh no, someone said bad things about both of Masnick's favorite companies at the same time! Better get a Zuckerberg puff piece ready to counter with, Mike.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 4:45pm

    A little history:

    Google (Alpha-whatever), and Facebook both rose to their current market position by out-competing an existing "monopoly" player. (Yahoo for Google, MySpace for Facebook.)

    at&t came about because Alexander Graham Bell happened to get his patent approved first. His Bell Telephone then grew by force of monopoly, imposed by bribes, lawsuits, and outright violence.



    (*Oh, and "Market Cap" has little to do with a company's size. It's just a consensus opinion of a company's total worth at one slice of time, and is subject to extreme and rapid change, see: dot-com bubble)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 11:01pm

    "They're big companies -- and certainly, like with all big companies, we should be wary about how they might abuse their powers."

    Which is why the solution to the problem is to create yet another big company. Makes perfect sense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2016 @ 6:36am

    Just because a company is big, does not make it a monopoly. The crux is whether (viable) competition exists.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2016 @ 3:15pm

    Give it the fuck up Mike.

    No - one need do no more than consider facts at face value, and realize that you have long established history of attempting to whitewash Google's actions anytime they get caught red-handed doing anything wrong. It's that simple, and that easy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 17 Dec 2016 @ 8:46pm

      Re: Give it the fuck up Mike.

      How does this even have anything to do with some unstated purported wrongdoing on Google's part? How is allowing yet another monopoly-boosting merger (far worse than what the original AT&T was dismembered for) address some putative wrongdoing of Google? Or is this just another boilerplate Mike-is-a-shill-for-X comment pasted wherever you see Google or whatever favorite target mentioned on techdirt?

      As to that, I am hardly a Google fan, and have never seem Mike doing anything to shill or defend bad actions by Google, and i would be predisposed, i think, to see such things.

      You want to kill these companies? Start infiltrating the advertising world and corporate marketing with people who think sensibly. Of course, the same companies who want Google or Facebook dead so bad are large corporations who must spend hefty amounts advertising on... Facebook and Google. Their ad revenue is not coming from the little guys.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2016 @ 12:54am

        Re: Re: Give it the fuck up Mike.

        I think we have a shill for big content here, and big contents beef with Google and Facebook et al. is that they allow the publication of content without acting as gate keepers. This is creating intense competition, and they are not willing to turn themselves into service providers, rather that content buyers, and so are losing their audience to ore content providers than they can count.

        There are now many more hours of video and music, along with many more words that the legacy industry can keep track of being published per minute on the Internet, and I think they fear being drowned under that flood.

        Google and the other search engines, along with social media sites, are the key to stopping that flood, as they are the means by which people find what interests them. They are forced to use these services themselves to keep themselves in front of their target audience, but they also see their audience drifting away.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2016 @ 7:02am

      Re: Give it the fuck up Mike.

      The long established history is that of bullshit stories being publishing as "news".

      What "red handed" activity were either accused of?
      What "red handed" activity were either convicted of?
      What "red handed" activity was actually complete made up bullshit?

      Few things are simple and easy, complex and convoluted is the norm. Simple minds are easily lost in the maze they create.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2016 @ 6:41pm

    Fake News Strikes Again

    People are able to use mainstream journalism to cherry pick facts and present their own perspective about things. More like the "fake news epidemic" that is plaguing the internet

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Eponymous Cowherd, 18 Dec 2016 @ 9:46pm

    When the cows are walking out through broken fences...

    build stronger, taller, more fortified gates. Make sure you holler loudly too. And put on extra padlocks.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2016 @ 3:37am

    Yep it's the good old "Google has more money than we do. We want some of Google's money." again.
    Nice to see this from staunch proponents of "unregulated, free market" capitalism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 19 Dec 2016 @ 8:39am

    The nice thing about both Google and Facebook is that the barrier to entry for competition is almost non-existent. If I wanted to, I could start up my own search engine or social media site and throw it online myself. The reason people use these isn't because they have a monopoly, they choose to use them over the competition because they continue to do such a damn good job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2016 @ 11:00am

      Re:

      Yeah, totally... and the fact that they purchase any company they see as a threat has absolutely nothing to do with it.


      "Mike Masnick likes this"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.