[governance] Re: reality check on economics

[Guru गुरु]

I wonder how Consumers International will view the take that 
increasingly for the big Internet companies like Google and Facebook, 
'we'  (eyeballs) are the product, and the advertising agencies are the 
real consumers!

The result of a media space being 'paid' almost entirely by private 
funding (advertising) with very little public funding or subscriptions.
And what would be the need/role for regulation in such a case....

regards,
Guru

On 19/05/12 06:09, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 19/05/2012, at 12:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>> Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public 
>>> interest(s),
>>> so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market.
>>
>> Typically, a competitive market means that consumers can avoid or 
>> punish such firms by abandoning them because of their bad practices.
>
> s/Typically/Theoretically/
>
>> Moreover, I do not see run-of-the-mill firms and run of the mill 
>> consumer protection issues being targeted in these sweeping 
>> statements calling for "democratic" governance of the internet - I 
>> see specific leading companies being called monopolies.
>
> Sure, I agree with you that that is inaccurate.  But I think all that 
> is meant, in non-specialist terms, is that those leading companies 
> have dominant market power, so that what competition exists is 
> ineffective.  Sometimes this market power is first mover advantage, 
> sometimes dumb luck, usually network effects.  I'm not convinced that 
> Skype has the best VoIP service, Facebook the best social networking 
> platform or Twitter the best microblog.  But because they are so 
> entrenched, Microsoft can add interception capability to Skype (see 
> http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/), Facebook can encroach further 
> and further upon our privacy, and Twitter can... do bad stuff that 
> thankfully they haven't tried yet.
>
>>> would have to include the US here. For example, the use of lengthy and
>>> legalistic terms and conditions that detract from consumer rights is 
>>> rife
>>> online, and this is something that US law explicitly allows. In other
>>
>> Indeed, that is a continuing point of controversy. But there is an 
>> additional burden of proof: at what political level is it best to 
>> alter such things?
>> There is a robust culture and tradition of consumer activism in the 
>> US. What makes you think consumers will get a better deal at a global 
>> level?
>
> We (by which I mean, the stakeholders collectively at the global 
> level) might want to be able to agree on some set of principles for 
> online businesses that operate across borders, that would set minimum 
> standards for consumer protection that may exceed those in the country 
> from which the business operates.  If the business doesn't want to 
> adhere to those standards, it can still operate domestically.  In 
> practice this already happens to some extent, eg. with EU privacy law 
> and the safe harbor, but what about the rest of the world?
>
>>> jurisdictions, there is regulation of unfair contract terms, 
>>> recognising the
>>> fictitious nature of freedom of contract between consumers and large 
>>> firms.
>>> But the dominance of US online businesses effectively trumps these
>>> protections elsewhere in the world.
>>
>> But if these markets are competitive then no one is requiring 
>> consumers to use those online businesses, no? So we are back to the 
>> problem of monopoly
>
> Not all of the abuses of their market power affect competition in the 
> marketplace; they may "just" affect consumer or broader human rights, 
> so competition law does not come into play.
>
> On 19/05/2012, at 12:11 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
>> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>>> Monopolies aren't the only firms who act against the global public 
>>> interest(s), so too do run-of-the-mill firms in a competitive market.
>>
>> both monopolies and "run of the mill" firms are also end-users in the
>> sense that they are allowed to run their networks and set their ToS as
>> they wish.
>
> To the extent that they are allowed to do so.  What constraints are 
> placed upon them doing so is a policy decision.
>
>>> Not all of their abuses are checked by competition law.
>>
>> Not all are abusive.
>
> Not all abuses are abusive?  My mind is spinning.
>
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Follow @ConsumersInt <http://twitter.com/Consumers_Int>
>
> Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120520/2d304c24/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t