Binh Nguyen's Blog: Living Without Google, Random Stuff, and More

Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Living Without Google, Random Stuff, and More

- after the recent kerfuffle regarding Google and it's news operation in Australia I wanted to examine what the implications would be if they were to drop off the planet, leave, etc... In reality, once you've stripped away all the pandamonium and melodrama it doesn't feel we'd lose all that much? Life would be difficult for a time but it would continue
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-big-5-us-it-firms-arent-unbeatable.html

https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/02/web-server-global-sampling.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-elite-maintain-power-random-stuff.html
An update from Google on the News Media Bargaining Code
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHypeuHePEI

Tech Giants - Does monopoly have to be a dirty word

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWsqCqvTPls

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wendy+liu

Capitalism Doesn't Drive New Tech, It Exploits Innovation- Wendy Liu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM-PueTRPos

AGAINST EVERYONE WITH CONNER HABIB 114 - WENDY LIU or AGAINST TECHNOCRACY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXRXiVzSDc0

Reimagining the Internet 12. Wendy Liu, Abolish Silicon Valley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks2FtryEXgo

Wendy Liu - Abolish Silicon Valley (Stay at Home #51)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBR5rZPwjsk

The Twittering Machine - Richard Seymour and Wendy Liu in Conversation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4zu8Wvoepc

A couple of things have to happen if Google is to understand that it cannot try to dictate laws to sovereign nations.
One, no small media company should go behind the government's back and cut a deal with a company that is clearly on the back foot. All the good work done by Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg will be undone.
Two, the government should not grovel and give any more ground. As I have pointed out, the head of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Rod Sims, has given ground on three important fronts before the law was introduced to Parliament on the last sitting day of 2020:
the time interval for informing publishers about algorithm changes was changed;
digital platforms were allowed to factor in the value of the service they provide to a news organisation in monetary terms before the quantum of payment is decided; and
the law will only apply to Google Search and Facebook's NewsFeed. YouTube and Instagram are not covered.
There is no need to give a company of Google's size any more. Even these concessions are too much.
If Google and Facebook want to leave Australia, please provide them with a chartered plane at their own cost before they can change their minds. Do not give them any chance to backtrack and pretend that they are acting in the interests of users as Alex Zaharov-Reutt has reported.
As American comedian Bill Maher put it so eloquently [see embedded video above] to departing president Donald Trump: "Just pack your sh*t and go."
https://www.itwire.com/open-sauce/google-contradicts-its-own-claims-by-trying-to-cut-deals-on-the-sly.html
https://www.itwire.com/technology-regulation/google-directly-appealing-to-australian-google-search-users-over-news-media-code.html
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/will-google-and-facebook-really-axe-some-services-in-australia-and-what-will-that-mean/ar-BB1deRQf?ICID=ref_fark+&c=2486585232751210167&mkt=en-us
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/27/ignore-threats-to-shut-search-in-australia-and-force-google-to-pay-small-business-groups-say
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/31/zuckerberg-lobbies-josh-frydenberg-over-plan-to-force-facebook-and-google-to-pay-for-news-content
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/31/will-google-search-facebook-in-the-news-axe-services-australia-media-code-proposed-law-what-will-that-mean
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/aug/25/google-can-afford-a-slice-of-its-billions-to-help-sustain-journalism-labor-says
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/internet/google-facebook-senate-inquiry-kicks-off-into-news-bargaining-code/news-story/a604d4108bf947010cb29683994cd528
https://searchengineland.com/uk-court-to-google-expose-algorithm-or-withdraw-key-piece-of-defense-evidence-332278

https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2018/08/google-site-reliability-engineering-sre.html

http://sites.google.com/site/dtbnguyen/

http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com.au/

https://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/2060587/microsoft-seeks-to-fill-void-if-google-exits-australia-reports

search engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/alternative-search-engines/271409/
https://searchengineland.com/
https://www.searchenginewatch.com/
https://neilpatel.com/blog/alternative-search-engines/

p2p search engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_search_engine

https://yacy.net/

https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Distributed_Search_Engines

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=minion
- Gmail replacement is easy. It's obviously just email with some accoutrements. Given the prevelance of social media you can use that to replace public communication. What I didn't realise is that there seem to be good drop in replacements for Gmail with decent space now as well?
gmail alternative
https://clean.email/alternatives-to-gmail
https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2019/03/ditch-gmail-with-these-alternatives/
https://cybernews.com/secure-email-providers/alternatives-to-gmail/
- Blogger alternatives vary a lot. The main issue is the interface and whether you're basically self hosting using an alternative framework
blogger alternatives
https://medium.com/@DougMur11859490/7-blogger-alternatives-that-are-better-to-start-a-new-blog-in-2020-c7a361c0b473
https://alternative.me/blogger
01. Wix
02. Weebly
03. WordPress.org
04. WordPress.com
05. Joomla
06. Strikingly
07. Site123
08. Hubpages
09. Contentful
10. Jekyll
11. Tumblr
12. Blogger
13. Medium
14. SilverStripe
https://www.creativebloq.com/web-design/best-blogging-platforms-121413634
- Google social media options have been terrible to be honest. No replacements really necessary. Just stick to using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc?
- Google Home. A few options
google home alternative
https://www.slant.co/options/16713/alternatives/~google-home-alternatives
https://www.producthunt.com/alternatives/google-home
- Google Maps replacement means going back to GPS or even paper based maps? Not really a big problem. The technology has worked well for a while now
gps app
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.waze&hl=en_AU&gl=US
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sygic.aura&hl=en_AU&gl=US
https://apps.apple.com/au/app/gps-navigation-maps/id1206711655
https://www.androidauthority.com/best-gps-app-and-navigation-app-for-android-357870/
https://www.sixt.com/magazine/tips/top-free-navigation-apps/
https://www.online-tech-tips.com/software-reviews/9-best-free-offline-gps-apps-for-android/
- even RSS feeds aggregators may be better options then Google News? It feels like over the years the more profit focused the company has become the worse their products have become?
https://newslookup.com/
https://www.bing.com.au/news
https://www.google.com/news
https://individurls.com
average total number of websites a person accesses
How many websites does the average person visit?
The average person doesn't venture very far across the web, only visiting 96 separate domains per month, according to a Nielsen estimate in 2013.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/how-many-websites-are-there/408151/
https://au.oberlo.com/blog/internet-statistics
https://www.sweor.com/firstimpressions
- lots of YouTube alternatives already. I know of at least one website which is backing up YouTube (politically) censored content at the moment. I suspect that if Google went bankrupt or simply disappeared it would be difficult and annoying but others would quickly fill their niches quickly? Ironically, conspiracy theorists are a really good source of information in case the political establishment decide to crack down?
https://www.bitchute.com/
https://lbry.com/
https://odysee.com/
https://minds.com
https://www.corbettreport.com/
https://davidicke.com/
https://www.infowars.com/
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-elite-maintain-power-random-stuff.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/05/education-or-indoctrination-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/05/mexican-drug-cartel-background-random.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/03/religion-vs-uswestern-leadership-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-society-filtering-for-fairnessmerit.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2019/09/thinking-like-political-elite-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2018/01/capitalism-analysis-religion-23-and-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-western-leadership-required-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/08/neo-colonialism-and-neo-liberalism.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/06/religious-conspiracies-is-capitalism.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/01/conspiracy-theories-understanding.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/07/social-engineeringmanipulation-rigging.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/07/neuroscience-in-psyops-world-order.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/02/shadow-government-key-players-and-more.html
- I actually found and used more profitable alternatives to Adsense but they got blown out of the water since Google has clearly acquired network/size advantages which meant that these alternatives went out of business?
http://ssundeetips.blogspot.com.au/
http://ssundeetips.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/best-adsense-alternative-for-any-type.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2017/02/life-in-libya-going-off-grid-and-more.html
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dina+srinivasan
Three years ago, before she became an antitrust scholar whose work laid the blueprint for a new wave of monopoly lawsuits against Big Tech, Dina Srinivasan was a digital advertising executive bored with her job and worried about the bleak outlook for the industry.
"It just felt like, OK, Facebook and Google were going to win, and everybody else is going to lose, and that's just the way the cards were stacked," Srinivasan said. "I don't think this was widely understood."
...
Srinivasan said she had an epiphany in June 2014 when Facebook announced that it would start tracking the behaviour of users across the internet — and outside of its network — to sharpen its ad targeting. Even as her colleagues celebrated the news as an important breakthrough for advertisers, Srinivasan could not shake the feeling that this represented a failure of the free market.
"Who the heck consents to having a company track them across the internet," she remembered thinking. "They could only do it because they had monopoly power to do something that clearly goes against consumer interests."
After leaving the ad world in 2017, she spent the next year researching and writing a paper on why Facebook was a monopoly. She submitted her paper to the websites of about a dozen law reviews. To her surprise, the Berkeley Business Law Journal, which is associated with the University of California, Berkeley's law school, agreed to publish her work. Srinivasan said she cried at the news.
Her Facebook paper quickly captured the attention of regulators. In March 2019, a month after it was published, David Cicilline, the Democratic chair of the House antitrust subcommittee, wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission urging the agency to investigate Facebook on antitrust grounds, citing her paper, among other works. The New York attorney-general's office later asked her to speak to its lawyers about her work.
This year, she took aim with her Stanford Technology Law Review article at the other behemoth of the online ad world: Google. She explained the complex world of online ad exchanges, where display ads are sold and bought in milliseconds. Srinivasan argued that Google dominates nearly all facets of these markets, representing buyers and sellers while also operating the largest exchange.
While other electronic trading markets — namely, financial markets — are heavily regulated to prevent conflicts of interest and unfair advantages of speed and inside information, online ad trading is largely unregulated. She argued that Google's dominance inflated the price of ads — a concept described as a "monopoly tax" in the multistate lawsuit led by Texas.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/everybody-else-is-going-to-lose-tech-industry-exiles-turn-on-google-facebook-20201222-p56ph8.html
- there are actually several FOSS options that may be compatible with Android OS?
https://www.androidcentral.com/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-tweets-cryptic-link-grapheneos
https://grapheneos.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS
Origins
Reports surrounding an in-house operating system being developed by Huawei date back as far as 2012. They intensified in May 2019 after Huawei was subjected to export restrictions by the United States government for alleged violations of United States sanctions against Iran. Huawei executive Richard Yu described an in-house platform as a "plan B" in case it is prevented from using Android on future smartphone products.[2][3][4]
Prior to its unveiling, it was originally speculated to be a mobile operating system that could replace Android on future Huawei devices (in response to financial sanctions imposed on Huawei by the United States government in May 2019), but by July 2019, some Huawei executives were describing Harmony as being an "industrial" embedded operating system designed for IoT hardware, discarding the previous statements for it to be a mobile operating system. These details were confirmed upon the official unveiling of the platform in 2019, with Huawei listing use cases such as smart TVs, in-car entertainment, and wearable devices.
Some media outlets reported that this OS, referred to as "Hongmeng OS", could be released in China in either August or September 2019, with a worldwide release in the second quarter of 2020.[5][6] On 24 May 2019, Huawei registered "Hongmeng OS" as a trademark in China.[7] The name "Hongmeng" (Chinese: 鸿蒙; lit. 'Vast Mist') came from Chinese mythology that symbolizes primordial chaos or the world before creation.[8] The same day, Huawei registered trademarks surrounding "Ark OS" and variants with the European Union Intellectual Property Office.[9] In July 2019, it was reported that Huawei had also registered trademarks surrounding the word "Harmony" for desktop and mobile operating system software, indicating either a different name or a component of the OS.[10]
In June 2019, Huawei communications VP Andrew Williamson told Reuters that the company was testing HongMeng in China, and that it could be ready "in months". However, in July 2019, chairman Liang Hua and senior vice president Catherine Chen stated that Hongmeng OS was not actually intended as a mobile operating system for smartphones, and was actually an embedded operating system designed for Internet of things (IoT) hardware.[11][12][13] In July 2019, Huawei chairman Liang Hua stated that the OS was intended for "industrial" use and that Huawei "[had not] decided yet if the Hongmeng OS can be developed as a smartphone operating system in the future" (preferring the continued use of Android for these devices).[14] Building upon the statement, Huawei's senior vice president Catherine Chen stated that it was an embedded operating system designed for Internet of things (IoT) hardware.[15][16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS#Origins

- a few Google Docs alternatives. Haven't tried any of them yet

google docs alternative

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/best-google-docs-alternatives/

https://www.nuclino.com/alternatives/google-docs-alternative

https://www.slant.co/topics/10231/~alternatives-to-google-docs

- the obvious replacement for Google Drive is Dropbox. Somewhat ironically, some laptop/tablet/smartphone manufacturers have had options for a while now as well. It's mainly been Google's centralised authentication which has probably meant their options have largely gone unused?

asus free cloud storage

https://www.asuswebstorage.com/

https://www.free-online-backup-services.com/reviews/asus-webstorage/

google drive alternative

https://www.canto.com/blog/google-drive-alternatives/

https://www.slant.co/options/3168/alternatives/~google-drive-alternatives

https://marketsplash.com/google-drive-alternatives/

- let's not forget YouTube is one of many acquisitions by Google and like many other products in the IT industry most of their core products are based on things from the FOSS world? Once you understand their core products you come to the realisation that the FOSS world could easily fill the gap if FAANG collapsed via similar but P2P based technologies? You might not even need a capital raising?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet
Renegade Inc _ Competition Is Killing Us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuZ9OlQNufM
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Michelle+Meagher
https://michellemeagher.com/
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/michmeagher
https://twitter.com/michmeagher?lang=en
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/michelle-meagher
https://www.inclusivecompetition.org/
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Competition-Is-Killing-Us-by-Michelle-Meagher-author/9780241423011
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/315/315772/competition-is-killing-us/9780241423011.html
ppe degree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_economics
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/philosophy-politics-and-economics
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/23/ppe-passport-power-degree-oxford
- in reality, they don't really employ all that many people?
faang
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-faang
faang total number of employees
Amazon
Number of employees: (FY 2019): 798,000
Apple
Number of employees: (FY 2019): 137,000
Netflix
Number of employees: (FY 2019): 8,600
Google
Number of employees: 118,899 Full Time Employees (Dec, 2019)
https://www.garyfox.co/faang-stocks/
facebook employees
Number of employees 52,534 (June 30, 2020)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc.
microsoft employees
Number of employees 156,439 (2020)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
total employees ict industry united states
U.S. information sector: number of employees 2010-2020
In April 2019, the number of employees in the information sector was at about 2,616,000.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/199979/number-of-employees-in-the-us-information-sector/
total employees ict industry united states
The worldwide full-time employment in the ICT sector is projected to reach 55.3 million in 2020 (pre-corona estimation), an increase of 3.9 percent over 2019. Software developer/engineer, user support specialist and systems analyst are three major job roles in the ICT industry.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1126677/it-employment-worldwide/
- more strangeness? I would have thought that FAANG would have done more for the community? In reality, they match employee donations? What's even more strange is where a lot of the money is coming from and where it's going to?
$12 million and 10,000 pro bono hours committed to Racial Justice
Since 2015, we've given $32 million in funding to organizations that use data science and innovative new approaches to advance racial justice.
...
$100 million and 50,000 pro bono hours committed to COVID-19
We're supporting effective solutions throughout the course of this pandemic — from immediate relief to long term recovery and future preparedness.
https://www.google.org/
https://blog.google/inside-google/company-announcements/standing-with-black-community/
https://www.google.org/covid-19/
corporate donations list
https://doublethedonation.com/tips/companies-that-donate-to-nonprofits/
Boeing's Donation Program
BP's Donation Program
Disney's Donation Program
Home Depot's Donation Program
Johnson & Johnson's Donation Program
Outerwall's Donation Program
State Farm's Donation Program
SONY's Donation Program
Samsung's Donation Program
Coca-Cola's Donation Program
CVS's Donation Program
General Mills' Donation Program
Kroger's Donation Program
McDonald's Donation Program
Pepsi's Donation Program
Starbucks' Donation Program
Walmart's Donation Program
Publix's Donation Program
Darden Restaurant Group's Donation Program
Apple's Donation Program
Best Buy's Donation Program
General Electric's Donation Program
Google's Donation Program
HP's Donation Program
Microsoft's Donation Program
Microsoft's Software Donation Program
Verizon's Donation Program
Cisco's Donation Program
IBM's Donation Program
American Eagle's Donation Program
eBay's Donation Program
Gap's Donation Program
Kohl's Donation Program
Macy's Donation Program
Nike's Donation Program
Nordstrom's Donation Program
Levi Strauss's Donation Program
Neiman Marcus's Donation Program
https://doublethedonation.com/tips/donation-requests/
https://blog.fundly.com/donation-requests/
Companies That Give Back List
1. TOMS Shoes
2. Gymboree
3. UncommonGoods
4. Warby Parker
5. Everlane
6. Honest Co
7. Etsy
8. Ivory Ella
9. Nisolo
10. Macy's
11. Build-A-Bear
12. Pura Vida Bracelets
13. The Home Depot
14. Chewy
https://blog.givingassistant.org/brands-that-give-back/
https://blog.givingassistant.org/certified-b-corporation/
https://fortune.com/2016/06/22/fortune-500-most-charitable-companies/
corporate donations list statistics
https://nonprofitssource.com/online-giving-statistics/
Giving by Business
Australian business may give money (66% of their total giving), goods (17% of their total giving) or services (18% of their total giving).
In 2015-16 businesses gave $17.5 billion, which comprised:
$7.7 billion in community partnerships
$6.2 billion in donations
$3.6 billion in non-commercial sponsorships
https://www.philanthropy.org.au/tools-resources/fast-facts-and-stats/
Who is giving?
As in previous years, the majority of that giving came from individuals. Specifically, individuals gave $286.65 billion, accounting for 70% of all giving and representing a 3.0% increase over 2016.
Giving by bequest increased by 2.3% to $35.70 billion (9% of all donations).
Foundations - which includes grants made by independent, community, and operating foundations - gave $66.9 billion (16% of all donations). This represents a 6% increase over the prior year.
Corporations grew by 8% to $20.77 billion (5% of all donations).
Historically, donations from individuals account for over two-thirds of all donations. If you add in gifts from bequests, then the category accounts for nearly 80% of all giving. In other words, the donating public, not big foundations or corporations, is responsible for the vast majority of annual donations.
Where do the donations go?
Giving to Education charities was up 6.2% to $58.9 billion (14% of all donations).
Donations to Human Services charities were up 5.1% to $50.06 billion (12% of all donations).
Foundations saw an increase of 6% to $45.89 billion (11% of all donations).
Health charities experienced an increase of 15.5% to $38.27 billion (9% of all donations).
Public-Society Benefit charities saw an increase of 7.8% to $29.59 billion (7% of all donations).
Giving to International charities decreased by 4.4% to $22.97 billion (6% of all donations).
Arts, Culture and Humanities saw an increase of 8.7% to $19.51 billion (5% of all donations).
Charities that focus on the Environment / Animals saw an increase of 7.2% to $11.83 billion (3% of all donations).
Historically, Religious groups have received the largest share of charitable donations. This remained true in 2016. With the 2.9% increase in donations this year, 31% of all donations, or $127.37 billion, went to Religious organizations. Much of these contributions can be attributed to people giving to their local place of worship.
Giving Statistics
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42
Here's a look at some of the US companies that donate the most to charity.
1. Gilead Sciences leads the pack in charitable giving for 2017
Biotech firm Gilead Sciences donated the most money to charitable causes in 2017 – $US388 million – according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy's survey of charitable giving by major US companies in 2017.
Considering that the company's annual pretax profit is $US13.5 billion, its giving takes up 2.9% of said profit, the Chronicle survey states.
According to a 2016 report by Fortune, the company generally gives cash grants to health-related projects, such as the nonprofit Liver Foundation.
2. Wells Fargo & Company gives back locally and nationally
Wells Fargo & Company came in second for 2017 giving, donating $US287 million in cash of its $US27.4 billion pretax profit, or 1%, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
According to BusinessWire, in 2017, Wells Fargo donated to more than 14,500 non-profits, and employees volunteered 2 million hours. Highlights of the company's charitable efforts included $US28 million donated to veterans and military service members, $US45 million in down-payment assistance and other home-buying resource through NeighborWorks, and $US10.6 million to the American Red Cross.
In 2019, the company plans to use 2% of its after-tax profits for philanthropy, BusinessWire reported.
3. Goldman Sachs Group has increased its giving since 2007
In 2017, Goldman Sachs Group gave $US280 million in cash to charity. That's 2.5% of its $US11.1 billion pretax profit, Chronicle of Philanthropy reported.
Their charitable missions include 10,000 Women, which provides education, funding, and other resources to women entrepreneurs around the world, and 10,000 Small Businesses, which invests money and resources in people running small businesses.
4. Google gives back via Google.org, its philanthropic arm
Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Action Against Hunger
The Action Against Hunger 2015 Benefit Gala. Google is a partner and funder for this charity.
Google donated $US255 million in cash to charity in 2017, which is 0.9% of its $US27.2 billion pretax profit for the year, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
In 2017, Google announced that it plans to give $US1 billion in grants and contribute one million volunteer hours over a five-year period, according to Philanthropy News Digest. The charitable work will focus on "education, economic opportunity, and inclusion."
5. JPMorgan Chase & Company supports financial initiatives
According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, JP Morgan Chase & Company donated $US250 million in cash to philanthropic causes in 2017 – 0.7% of its $US35.9 billion pretax profit.
In January 2018, JP Morgan Chase announced a commitment to boosting philanthropic efforts by 40% in the next five years, Philanthropy News Digest reported.
The total of $US1.75 billion in charitable investments will focus on economic revitalization in underserved neighbourhoods, increasing support for the Entrepreneurs of Colour Fund, and providing job training to those in need.
6. Johnson & Johnson focuses on health-related causes locally and globally
Ekem/Wikimedia Commons
Johnson & Johnson HQ in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Johnson & Johnson, in 2017, donated $US227 million in cash to charity, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Of its $US17.7 billion pretax profit, that's 1.3%.
The medical devices, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company supports health-related causes via global and community-based partnerships, such as the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, according to its website.
7. Pfizer donates funds to support health-related causes
In 2017, Pfizer donated 1.7% of its $US12.3 billion pretax profit, which equals $US210 million in cash, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
The pharmaceutical giant provides grants for health-related causes, including the International Trachoma Initiative, which works to eradicate the blindness-causing eye infection.
8. ExxonMobil focuses on three main areas with its giving
ExxonMobil, which takes the ninth spot on the Fortune Global 500 of the biggest companies in the world (based on 2017 revenues and profits), donated $US204 million in cash in 2017, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. That's 1.1% of its $US18.7 billion pretax profit.
The oil and gas company focuses on three areas with its giving: education, malaria prevention, and economic opportunities for women, according to a 2016 report in Fortune. It has worked with the international women's group Vital Voices and the Medicines for Malaria Venture.
9. Bank of America funds workforce education, community development, and more
According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Bank of America ponied up $US181 million in cash to charitable causes in 2017, which is 0.6% of its $US29.2 billion pretax profit.
Since the 2008 recession, the financial firm has concentrated its giving on basic needs and economic mobility by funding community development, workforce education, and hunger and other urgent needs, according to Fortune. In the past, it has worked with Feeding America to battle hunger.
10. Microsoft Corporation works with more than 200,000 nonprofits
David Ramos/Getty Images
In 2017, Microsoft made a $US25 million commitment to the Markle Foundation's Skillful program.
In 2017, Microsoft Corporation gave $US169 million cash to charity – or 0.7% of its $US23.1 billion pretax profit, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Via its Microsoft Philanthropies arm, the tech giant works with more than 200,000 nonprofits and has donated more than $US1.4 billion in cash grants and technology (as of February 2018), according to a LinkedIn article by Mary Snapp, corporate vice president and lead for Microsoft Philanthropies.
According to the article, in 2017, Microsoft made a $US25 million commitment – one of its biggest philanthropic investments – to the Markle Foundation's Skillful program, which identifies the most in-demand skills for employers and trains people in them.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/companies-that-give-the-most-to-charity-in-the-us-2018-9?r=US&IR=T
NPT curates statistics from recent studies and reports on charitable giving in the U.S. Please refer to the footnotes for original sources.
General Philanthropy
Americans gave $449.64 billion in 2019. This reflects a 5.1% increase from 2018.1
Corporate giving in 2019 increased to $21.09 billion—a 13.4% increase from 2018.1
Foundation giving in 2019 increased to $75.69 billion—a 2.5% increase from 2018.1
In 2019, the largest source of charitable giving came from individuals at $309.66 billion, or 69% of total giving. In four of the last five years, charitable giving by individuals has grown.
Other sources of charitable giving were giving by foundations ($75.69 billion/17% of the total share of American giving), bequests ($43.21 billion/10%), and corporations ($21.09 billion/5%).1
In 2019, the majority of charitable dollars went to religion (29%), education (14%), human services (12%), grantmaking foundations (12%), and health (9%).1 These percentages and top funding areas stayed the same from 2018.
Giving in 2019 increased in nearly every sector, with double-digit growth in gifts for education (12.1%); public-society benefit (13.1%); arts, culture, and humanities (12.6%); and environment and animal organizations (11.3%).1
Charitable giving accounted for 2.1% of gross domestic product in 2018.1
Historically, charitable giving rises about one-third as fast as the stock market.2
Individual and Family Philanthropy
Approximately 90% of high net worth households give to charity.3
On average, high net worth donors gave $29,269 to charity in 2017. By comparison, general population households gave $2,514 on average.3
Adults are more likely to give to charity if their parents gave to charity.4
Charitable Organizations
According to the most recent data available, there are more than 1.54 million charitable organizations in the United States.5
Sources of revenue for tax-exempt organizations in 2012 were program service revenues, including government contracts and fees (73%), contributions, gifts, & government grants (21%) and lastly, dues, special event income, rental income and net sales from goods (6%).5
Volunteering
An estimated 25.1 percent of US adults volunteered in 2017, contributing an estimated 8.8 billion hours, valued at approximately $195.0 billion.5
Approximately 77 million Americans—30% of the adult population—volunteer their time, talents, and energy to making a difference.6
The top four national volunteer activities are fundraising or selling items to raise money (36.0%); food collection or distribution (34.2%); collecting, making or distributing clothing, crafts or other goods (26.5%); and mentoring youth (26.2%).6
The top four types of organizations by volunteering are: religious (32.0%); sport, hobby, cultural or arts (25.7%); educational or youth service (19.2%); and civic, political, professional or international (6.2%).6
Donor-Advised Funds
There were 728,563 donor-advised fund accounts in 2018.8
Donor-advised funds held $121.42 billion in assets in 2018.8
Annual contributions into donor-advised funds were $37.12 billion in 2018.8
Donors recommended grants from donor-advised funds totaling $23.42 billion to charities in 2018.8
Average donor-advised fund account size was $166,657 in 2018.8
https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/
- the biggest corporate tax payers looks very strange? Most figures I'm seeing says that few of FAANG are in the top 10, 20, 30, 40 biggest tax payers? That said, if you examine some of the top payers then it may explain why governments kow two to their interests so often? They basically pay the bills for social services in that country?
biggest corporate tax payers
https://www.afr.com/wealth/tax/revealed-australia-s-top-10-biggest-corporate-taxpayers-20201210-p56m8n
https://www.afr.com/wealth/tax/top-10-biggest-firms-paying-23-billion-in-tax-20191212-p53j91
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/top-40-taxpayers/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-10/ato-corporate-tax-transparency-data-large-companies-pay-no-tax/12967064
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2019/04/29/biggest-best-taxpayers-australia/
https://www.ato.gov.au/business/large-business/corporate-tax-transparency/
biggest corporate tax payers united states
https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/you-paid-taxes-these-corporations-didnt/
1. ExxonMobil
• Income tax expense: $31.05 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $78.73 billion
• Revenue: $428.38 billion
•1-year share price change: 6.56%
• Industry: Oil and gas
...
2. Chevron
• Income tax expense: $20.00 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $46.33 billion
• Revenue: $222.58 billion
• 1-year share price change: 9.52%
• Industry: Oil and gas
...
3. Apple
• Income tax expense: $14.21 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $55.96 billion
• Revenue: $164.69 billion
• 1-year share price change: -20.68%
• Industry: Computer hardware
...
4. Wells Fargo
• Income tax expense: $9.10 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $28.47 billion
• Revenue: $79.45 billion
• 1-year share price change: 16.77%
• Industry: Banks
...
5. Wal-Mart
• Income tax expense: $7.98 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $25.74 billion
• Revenue: $469.16 billion
• 1-year share price change: 21.87%
• Industry: Supermarkets
...
6. ConocoPhillips
• Income tax expense: $7.94 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $15.42 billion
• Revenue: $60.35 billion
• 1-year share price change: -22.86%
• Industry: Energy exploration and production
...
7. JPMorgan
• Income tax expense: $7.63 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $28.92 billion
• Revenue: $91.66 billion
• 1-year share price change: 24.30%
• Industry: Financial services
...
8. Berkshire Hathaway
• Income tax expense: $6.92 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $22.24 billion
• Revenue: $162.46 billion
• 1-year share price change: 31.01%
• Industry: Asset management
...
9. IBM
• Income tax expense: $5.30 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $21.90 billion
• Revenue: $104.51 billion
• 1-year share price change: 7.57%
• Industry: IT consulting
...
10. Microsoft
• Income tax expense: $4.57 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $20.03 billion
• Revenue: $72.93 billion
• 1-year share price change: -12.04%
• Industry: Software
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/these-91-fortune-500-companies-didnt-pay-federal-taxes-in-2018.html
The biggest taxpayer was the most profitable: Apple, which reserved $15.8 billion for income taxes on $59 billion in operating income. Apple reports its effective tax rate as 25.8%, which is quite a bit lower than the statutory 35% rate. The iPhone giant (like many tech companies with a lot of intellectual property) has become famous over the years for deploying legions of accountants to devise offshore tax avoidance mechanisms with names like "double Irish with a Dutch sandwich." Why book profits in the U.S. if you don't have to? Unfortunately for Apple, its pot of Irish gold appears to have evaporated. Last year the European Commission presented Apple with a $13 billion tax bill, payable to Dublin, on the grounds that Apple's tax structure had benefited from "state aid," a no-no. CEO Tim Cook has called it "total political crap."
Microsoft in the year ended June 2016 had $20.1 billion in foreign income and a domestic loss of $300 million. Microsoft's income tax expense was $3.3 billion, for an effective rate of 16.5%. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, posted a $4.7 billion tax expense, or 19%. Such "avoision" will continue as long as foreign income is subject to lower rates than domestic.
The U.S. continues to employ a so-called worldwide tax system. That means that earnings made overseas are only taxed when they come back to the U.S. Other nations use a territorial system, which does not tax overseas earnings of companies headquartered there. Candidate Trump proposed a one-time 10% levy on repatriated capital and adoption of the territorial system. Socialist Bernie Sanders, in contrast, favors requiring U.S.-based companies to pay higher U.S. tax rates on all the income they make worldwide, wherever earned.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/04/18/what-americas-biggest-companies-pay-in-taxes/?sh=4d74baa22f51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States
- if you look a lot of the the operations at FAANG you'll realise that they aren't that innovative? A lot innovations gained via acquisitions? Moreover, a lot of their research projects probably aren't going to do as much as good research scientists with decent funding (I'd back any one of Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Srinivasa Ramanujan over the whole of any one of FAANG in terms of bang for buck and beneficial impact on society?)? At times, it feels like these companies operate almost like investment and marketing firms with technology as a side business?
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-big-5-us-it-firms-arent-unbeatable.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-crazy-justice-system-random-stuff.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/11/medical-corruption-and-industrial.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling
google research projects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Brain
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
google acquisitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet
https://www.gadgetsnow.com/slideshows/googles-12-biggest-acquisitions-and-what-they-mean-for-you/photolist/71862166.cms
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/google-biggest-acquisitions-infographic/
https://www.cbinsights.com/research-google-acquisitions
https://www.crunchbase.com/search/acquisitions/field/organizations/num_acquisitions/google
facebook acquisitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021115/facebooks-most-important-acquisitions.asp
facebook research projects
https://research.fb.com/
https://research.fb.com/research-areas/
https://github.com/facebookresearch
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/facebook-launches-new-research-project-to-assess-the-impact-of-social-media/584457/
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18531060/facebook-data-researchers-social-science-one-first-studies
amazon research projects
https://www.amazon.science/
https://www.amazon.science/research-areas
https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/what-we-do/wise-projects/amazon-research-project/
https://www.amazon.jobs/en/job_categories/research-science

amazon acquisitions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Amazon

https://www.cbinsights.com/research/amazon-biggest-acquisitions-infographic/

https://www.businessinsider.com/acquisitions-that-made-amazon-the-giant-it-is-today-2019-6

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102115/top-10-companies-owned-amazon.asp

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201705/zoe-henry/will-amazon-buy-you.html

Director, Facebook Research
Company NameFacebook
Dates EmployedOct 2016 – Present
Employment Duration4 yrs 4 mos
LocationSeattle/Menlo Park
Managing Facebook Research's operations and academics relations. Accountable for:
• Defining Facebook's strategic research plans and engagements with academics and research institutes worldwide including support for Artificial Intelligence (AI), Infrastructure, Data Science, Economics, Social Sciences, User eXperience (UX).
• Overseeing Facebook's university contracts, academic collaborations, payments and transactions - leading negotiations and defining terms of engagements as required; examples include establishing Facebook's investments in the Institute for the Ethics of AI (@ Technical University of Munich, Germany) and the African Masters in Machine Intelligence (@ AIMS, Rwanda).
• Research conference activations/investments (eg NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, CVPR, ECCV, USENIX, ACL, CHI, Web Conference) including, where appropriate booth presence, social events, promotions, collateral.
• Defining, instrumenting and operating key internal processes for all Facebook's Research Reviews (internal equivalent of an IRB), Publications, Collaborations, RFPs, Research Privacy Review.
• Driving all marketing communications associated with the Facebook Research website, blog and social media engagement.
• Evaluating the impact of our research, providing feedback to senior management on opportunities/risks associated with our research engagements and policies.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/daron-green-02b9505a
microsoft acquisitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/acquisition-history.aspx
https://wiki2.org/en/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/020316/top-5-companies-owned-microsoft-msft.asp
https://cloudwars.co/microsoft/microsoft-acquisitions-getting-scary-and-thats-good/
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/microsofts-2019-acquisition-spree-20-deals-totaling-9-1b-led-blockbuster-github-buy/

microsoft research projects

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/

https://www.hongkiat.com/blog/amazing-projects-microsoft-research/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Research

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2270175/10-microsoft-research-projects.html

- for a while now I've been wondering whether it's possible to go away from the current corporate structure of the economy? (Namely, there is a strange tendency to have roughly half a dozen large companies in various core sectors of the economy. The education system produces students who are good corporate minions but not society in general. Thereafter, everyone else is left to fend for themselves). You'd have to move towards open standards, open file formats, ditch centralisation, etc... If you could keep a cap on the maximum size of a company you could stop profits from blowing out in a monopoly style situation/become exploitative as well?

p2p search engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_search_engine

https://yacy.net/

https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Distributed_Search_Engines

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=minion
Despicable Me 3 - Minions Funny Moments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_-dgO63ORs
Despicable Me 3 2017 - Minion Idol Stage Song Scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ4rQKpcQ60
Minions (2015) - Bob, Stuart, Kevin Best Moments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJQzqHm3DqM
Minions Banana Song Full Song)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9EHdp1ynUU
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=minion+gru
Despicable Me 3 2017 - Minion Idol Stage Song Scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ4rQKpcQ60
big 4 accounting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_accounting_firms
https://www.accountingverse.com/articles/big-4-accounting-firms.html
big 6 media
https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/the-big-four-auditors-are-really-just-the-big-three-20200907-p55t1x
https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/big-6-media
big 4 banks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(banking)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Australia
Share the Technology - Experts Say We Must End Big Pharma Monopoly on COVID Vaccine Supply & Price

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TbW_U9fijQ
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/21/22242718/twitter-bluesky-decentralized-social-media-team-project-update
https://lbry.com/
https://odysee.com/
hacker ethic
The hacker ethics
As Levy summarized in the preface of Hackers, the general tenets or principles of hacker ethic include:[10]
Sharing
Openness
Decentralization
Free access to computers
World Improvement (foremost, upholding democracy and the fundamental laws we all live by, as a society)
In addition to those principles, Levy also described more specific hacker ethics and beliefs in chapter 2, The Hacker Ethic:[11] The ethics he described in chapter 2 are:
1. "Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!"
2. "All information should be free"
3. "Mistrust authority—promote decentralization"
4. "Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position"
5. "You can create art and beauty on a computer"
6. "Computers can change your life for the better"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
Philosophy
The philosophy of the movement is that the use of computers should not lead to people being prevented from cooperating with each other. In practice, this means rejecting proprietary software, which imposes such restrictions, and promoting free software,[4] with the ultimate goal of liberating everyone in cyberspace[5] – that is, every computer user. Stallman notes that this action will promote rather than hinder the progression of technology, since, "It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art."[6]
Members of the free software movement believe that all users of software should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Many of them hold that: it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms; these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each other; and they are necessary to have control over their computers.[7]
Some free software users and programmers do not believe that proprietary software is strictly immoral, citing an increased profitability in the business models available for proprietary software or technical features and convenience as their reasons.[8]
The Free Software Foundation also believes all software needs free documentation, in particular because conscientious programmers should be able to update manuals to reflect modification that they made to the software, but deems the freedom to modify less important for other types of written works.[9] Within the free software movement, the FLOSS Manuals foundation specialises on the goal of providing such documentation. Members of the free software movement advocate that works which serve a practical purpose should also be free.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement#Philosophy
Chevron vs. Donziger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDpNcJcVqxA
steven donziger
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-steven-donziger/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_A._Kaplan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_business
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Oil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Soda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tobacco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_D._Prescott
https://www.keker.com/Lawyers/Keker-John
The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin coined the term inverted totalitarianism in 2003 to describe what he saw as the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin analysed the United States as increasingly turning into a managed democracy (similar to an illiberal democracy). He uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" to draw attention to the totalitarian aspects of the American political system while emphasizing its differences from proper totalitarianism, such as Nazi and Stalinist regimes.[1]
The book Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt (2012) by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco portrays inverted totalitarianism as a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics bests politics.[2][3][4][5]
Every natural resource and living being is commodified and exploited by large corporations to the point of collapse as excess consumerism and sensationalism lull and manipulate the citizenry into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government.[6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
judge jeremy hammond
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cyber-activist-jeremy-hammond-sentenced-to-10-years-in-prison-109478/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond
https://gizmodo.com/judge-orders-chelsea-manning-and-jeremy-hammond-release-1842301516
- as much as I'd like to believe in self regulation and free markets working out well for everybody it only really works if you're dealing with people who are fair and just, in well regulated markets, etc... Based on what I've seen on most/many corporates I don't think FAANG fits into this category? They need regulation?
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/03/religion-vs-uswestern-leadership-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-society-filtering-for-fairnessmerit.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2019/09/thinking-like-political-elite-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2018/01/capitalism-analysis-religion-23-and-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-western-leadership-required-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/08/neo-colonialism-and-neo-liberalism.html
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/marking-its-own-homework-accc-weighs-up-action-against-google-for-alleged-anti-competitive-conduct-20210128-p56xft.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
trickledown economics
Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically targets taxes on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2]
The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[3][4]
It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.
— David Stockman, The Atlantic
Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[citation needed] Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth.[5][6] Trickle-down economics has been widely criticized, particularly by left-wing, centre-left and moderate politicians and economists, but also some right-wing politicians.
A 2019 study in the Journal of Political Economy found, contrary to trickle-down theory, that "the positive relationship between tax cuts and employment growth is largely driven by tax cuts for lower-income groups and that the effect of tax cuts for the top 10 percent on employment growth is small."[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rising_tide_lifts_all_boats
charity donation statistics
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives
General Fundraising Statistics
18% of Americans have said that supporting youth and family causes are most important to them.
12% said animals.
12% said medical research.
11% said education.
7% said disaster relief.
7% said human rights.
6% said the environment.
3% said global health.
Men between the ages of 18 and 34 are more likely to make a charitable donation than any other group.
60% of millennials donate an average of $481 to nonprofits each year.
Nearly three out of four young adults are willing to raise money on behalf of an organization that matters to them.
The average American supports 4.5 charities.
69% of Americans give charitably.
69% of all donations are made by individuals.
17% are made by foundations.
10% are made through bequests.
5% are made by corporations.
Individuals that earn $25,000 or less donate the largest share (16.6%) of their income to charity.
12% of all giving happens in the last three days of the year.
35% of all giving happens in the last three months of the year.
Monthly donors give 42% more in one year than one-time donors.
88% of dollars raised comes from 12% of an organization's donors.
Giving is projected to increase by 5.1% in 2021.
Nonprofits process more donations between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. EST than any other hour of the day.
In 2019, religious organizations received the majority (29%) of the $449.64 billion dollars donated. Education organizations received the next highest percentage of total giving (14%).
https://www.qgiv.com/blog/fundraising-statistics/
https://viralsolutions.net/charitable-giving-statistics/
https://www.thegoodcause.co/insights/2018/7/6/who-are-australias-best-and-worst-charities
- the reason why a lot of these companies possibly destroy more jobs then create is due to their nature? If you were to understand the way debt/finances were being used then it'd be like rigging a Super Mario game such that those at the top get 10,000 lives while those at the middle to bottom get somewhere between 0-100 lives? Those with more money initially basically use it to destroy their opposition and then take all profits after their Scorched Earth policy has taken effect. That's why you get unusual companies such as FAANG, Uber, Tesla, etc... which basically no profits for long time (generally around a decade) before they start to boom. It makes it very difficult for those at the bottom to middle to make any change to their life circumstances and effectively creates a de-facto tether/dependency relationship between those at the top and the bottom similar to that of the colonial/imperial period?
Keiser Report _ No Country for Small Business _ E1647
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0aPJg0mFCQ
Keiser Report _ A Very Large Stimulus Package _ E1648
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHOXJAPvKQ8
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=super+mario+song+swing+your+arms
Super Mario Brothers Super Show Credits - Do the Mario!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65uNCLBTje0
Super Mario Brothers Super Show Intro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkWYP95WbbY
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-big-5-us-it-firms-arent-unbeatable.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-crazy-justice-system-random-stuff.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/11/medical-corruption-and-industrial.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/06/history-of-hate-and-supremacy-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-society-filtering-for-fairnessmerit.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2019/09/thinking-like-political-elite-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2018/01/capitalism-analysis-religion-23-and-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-western-leadership-required-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/08/neo-colonialism-and-neo-liberalism.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/06/religious-conspiracies-is-capitalism.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/01/conspiracy-theories-understanding.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/07/social-engineeringmanipulation-rigging.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/07/neuroscience-in-psyops-world-order.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/02/shadow-government-key-players-and-more.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/03/religion-vs-uswestern-leadership-random.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/06/is-capitalism-collapsing-random.html
success in this system = opportunity/network/environment/school + capital buildup/financial backing/savings + understanding local system/capitalism + understanding craft/skill/education + ethics and/or corruption level/communication/interpersonal skills + genetics/health/physical condition + effort/hard work/flexibility
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-elite-maintain-power-random-stuff.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-society-filtering-for-fairnessmerit.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/10/cvresume-harvesting-research-notes.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/06/history-of-hate-and-supremacy-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/05/education-or-indoctrination-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/05/mexican-drug-cartel-background-random.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/03/religion-vs-uswestern-leadership-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/02/is-society-filtering-for-fairnessmerit.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2019/09/thinking-like-political-elite-random.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2018/01/capitalism-analysis-religion-23-and-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-western-leadership-required-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/08/neo-colonialism-and-neo-liberalism.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/06/religious-conspiracies-is-capitalism.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/01/conspiracy-theories-understanding.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/07/social-engineeringmanipulation-rigging.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/07/neuroscience-in-psyops-world-order.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2016/02/shadow-government-key-players-and-more.html
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/01/it-business-startup-resources-random.html
capital raising size vs business success rate
8 Startup Funding Statistics to Know
77% of small businesses rely on personal savings for their initial funds.
A third of small businesses start with less than $5,000.
The average small business requires about $10,000 of startup capital.
Only 0.05% of startups raise venture capital.
The average seed round is $2.2 million.
The median company running a seed funding round is 3 years old.
Of startups that raised seed rounds, 1% reached unicorn status of $1B+ valuation.
Startups with two co-founders rather than one raise 30% more capital.
https://www.fundera.com/resources/startup-funding-statistics
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/how-vcs-look-at-startups-and-founders/
business size vs years survival
Roughly a third of new businesses exit within their first two years, and half exit within their first five years.
New businesses that exit within...
1 year 21.4%
2 years 31.4%
3 years 38.4%
4 years 44.0%
5 years 48.9%
Note: Figures represent survival rates for businesses started in 2010
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics
The survival rate of new businesses has been remarkably consistent over time.
https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/institute/small-business-longevity.htm
What Is the Small Business Failure Rate?
20% of small businesses fail in their first year, 30% of small business fail in their second year, and 50% of small businesses fail after five years in business. Finally, 70% of small business owners fail in their 10th year in business.
https://www.fundera.com/blog/what-percentage-of-small-businesses-fail
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2016/strategy-business-unit-strategy-biology-of-corporate-survival
https://www.merchantsavvy.co.uk/uk-sme-data-stats-charts/
business failure rate by industry
NDUSTRY WITH THE HIGHEST FAILURE RATE
The construction industry is expected to grow 13 percent but its business failure rate is a whopping 25 percent. The transportation industry suffers the same failure rate. In both industries, 35 percent fail in their second year and 60 percent fail by their fifth year.
Here are the first year business failure rates of other notable industries:
Arts, entertainment and recreation: 11.6 percent
Real estate, rental and leasing: 12 percent
Food service industry (including restaurants): 15 percent
Finance and insurance: 16.4 percent
Professional, scientific and technical services: 19.4 percent
Source: the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Why Do Businesses Fail?
The top causes of small businesses failures are:
NOT ENOUGH DEMAND
LACK OF CASH
DYSFUNCTIONAL TEAM
COMPETITION
PRICING ISSUES
https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/startup/what-percentage-of-businesses-fail-first-year
Business Failure Rates and Startup Statistics for 2019
An astonishing 6.5 million businesses launch every year, but only a handful enjoy long-term success.
Like they have in the past, startup failure rates continue to hover around 90%. This presents some fundamental problems in the way many entrepreneurs approach their ventures.
Here's what failure rates look like broken down by year:
First year: 21.5%
Second year: 30%
Fifth year: 50%
10th year: 70%
https://www.national.biz/2019-small-business-failure-rate-startup-statistics-industry/
https://smallbiztrends.com/2012/09/failure-rates-by-sector-the-real-numbers.html
Top 10 causes of small business failure:
No market need: 42 percent;
Ran out of cash: 29 percent;
Not the right team: 23 percent;
Got outcompeted: 19 percent;
Pricing / Cost issues: 18 percent;
User un-friendly product: 17 percent;
Product without a business model: 17 percent;
Poor marketing: 14 percent;
Ignore customers: 14 percent; and
Product mistimed: 13 percent.
https://smallbiztrends.com/2019/03/startup-statistics-small-business.html
Interpretations
In their 2004 founders' letter[14] prior to their initial public offering, Larry Page and Sergey Brin argued that their "Don't be evil" culture prohibited conflicts of interest, and required objectivity and an absence of bias:
Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a well-run newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers' payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.
In 2009, Chris Hoofnagle, director of University of California, Berkeley Law's information privacy programs, stated that Google's original intention expressed by the "don't be evil" motto was linked to the company's separation of search results from advertising.[15] However, he observed that clearly separating search results from sponsored links is required by law, thus, Google's practice had since become mainstream and was no longer remarkable or good. Hoofnagle argued that Google should abandon the motto because:
The evil talk is not only an albatross for Google, it obscures the substantial consumer benefits from Google's advertising model. Because we have forgotten the original context of Google's evil representations, the company should remind the public of the company's contribution to a revolution in search advertising, and highlight some overlooked benefits of their model.
In a 2013 NPR interview, Eric Schmidt revealed that when Larry Page and Sergey Brin recommended the motto as a guiding principle for Google, he "thought this was the stupidest rule ever", but then changed his opinion after a meeting where an engineer successfully referred to the motto when expressing concerns about a planned advertising product, which was eventually cancelled.[16] Journalists have raised questions about the actual definition of what Google considered "evil".[17][18] On the user-facing 'What We Believe' page, Google appeared to replace the original motto altogether (a carefully reworded version stood as of 10 April 2015, "You can make money without doing evil",[10] which varied significantly from the absolute imperative of DON'T be evil).
Use in criticism of Google
Critics of Google frequently spin the motto in a negative way, such as InfoWorld's 2014 article "Google? Evil? You have no idea".[19][20][21][22] Google's 2012 announcement to "begin tracking users universally across all its services" (via "Google Plus" accounts) resulted in public backlash on the motto, like "Google's Broken Promise: The End of 'Don't Be Evil'" on Gizmodo.[23][24][25] In the same year, major social networks even co-developed a Don't be evil browser bookmarklet (specifically to expose alleged SERP manipulation promoting Google-owned content over that of others).[26]
On 16 May 2013, Margaret Hodge MP, the chair of the United Kingdom Public Accounts Committee, accused Google of being "calculated and unethical" over its use of highly contrived and artificial distinctions to avoid paying billions of pounds in corporation tax owed by its UK operations.[27] The company was accused by the committee, which represents the interests of all UK taxpayers, of being "evil" for not paying its "fair amount of tax". She told Matt Brittin, head of Google UK, "I think that you do evil".[28] In 2015, the UK Government introduced a new law intended to penalise Google and other large multinational corporations' artificial tax avoidance.[29]
In 2015, the Commercial Appeal reported that "critics say Google's recent moves belie search giant's motto".[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_corporation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mottos
https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/trump-accuses-google-of-rigging-search-results-in-favor-of-bad-coverage.html
antitrust accusations faang
https://www.xda-developers.com/us-subcommittee-antitrust-report-amazon-apple-facebook-google-abuse-monopoly-dominant-position-market/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-technology-antitrust-idUSKCN1T42JH
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/technology/congress-big-tech-monopoly-power.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/technology/amazon-apple-alphabet-facebook-congress-antitrust.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/big-techs-antitrust-fears-give-investors-a-rare-chance-to-buy-facebook-amazon-on-the-cheap.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/03/us-tech-stocks-alphabet-google-antitrust-investigation
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=captain+jack+sparrow+funny
Top 10 Funniest Jack Sparrow Moments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvO-cpd8AuI
Great Moments of Pirates of the Carribean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbFtZGE_li0
Jack Sparrow being iconic for 4 minutes straight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51PyZeidmxM
Pirates of the caribbean | Funny scenes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbC7yqR7NL8
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=captain+jack+sparrow+drunk
Pirates of the Caribbean - All Rum Scenes HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXO9DYUITfw
Pirates of the Caribbean - All Food/Drink scenes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpzwsfsPgPI
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=austin+powers+mini+me
Austin Powers - Mini-Me gets owned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcSSjgu9wFs
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=darth+vader+son
Luke Learns Vader Is His Father [1080p]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GueBXRYVhe0
- if you dealt with FAANG you'll realise that there's you end up with some really bizarre bugs and just like most other IT companies they just run and hide and fix things in the background while telling you to your face that nothing wrong has happened? On top of that there's often little no after sales support. If you have a problem you're just hoping that someone fixes it down the line. In reality, a lot of FOSS software probably has better support then that of FAANG?
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-big-5-us-it-firms-arent-unbeatable.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/02/web-server-global-sampling.html
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2020/09/google-sites-migration-goofs-killing.html
why can i not send messages on facebook marketplace
https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=114688199854243
https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=10155415801666947
https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=914493725551089
https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=1346772645371065
facebook messages out of order
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/b2hs96/why_does_facebook_messenger_mess_up_the_order_of/
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37152355/facebook-messenger-bot-not-sending-messages-in-order
####Start Quote####
We apologize for the inconvenience, but we are unable to process your request at this time. Our engineers have been notified of this problem and will work to resolve it.
####End Quote####

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sound+of+silence+simon+and+garfunkel

Simon And Garfunkel The Sound of Silence Version Original 1964

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkUOACGtGfA

Simon & Garfunkel - The Sound of Silence (from The Concert in Central Park)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEppFUWLfc

- it's really obvious why/how they're making such large profits. Really dodgy? FAANG are strangely political organisations? They may not rate highly in charitable donations but they seem to do well in political donations?
Google is prepared to "kill one to warn a hundred" after threatening to withdraw services from Australia, a senate inquiry has heard.
YouTube is Purging Again . . . Here's How to Find Me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68dO5Ai4nFI
Google Tries to Burn LBRY...But LBRY Fights Back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqCajbjWAw
http://www.newslookup.com/contrib/entertainment/article19735---39-COMMUNIST-CENSORSHIP--39---Kirstie-Alley-SLAMS-Big-Tech-For-Squashing-Hunter-Biden-Story
https://sputniknews.com/world/202010271080887879-youtube-facebook-twitter-limit-access-to--20-russian-media-sources-internet-watchdog-says/
Treasury and Communications Department officials will front a committee on the government's proposed media reforms on Monday, as it sits for the second and final day.
The federal government has stood firm in its push to force social media giants to pay for news content, despite an angry backlash from Facebook and Google.
Google threatened to remove its search engine from Australia users at the inquiry last month, and has launched a massive public relations campaign to criticise the proposal.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/internet/sobering-power-warning-over-big-tech-power/news-story/9ffc02f72b0f72f5f1f5a79c61a8ed93
Heaps of copyright violations on YouTube alone?
copyright violations on youtube
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_issues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_copyright_strike
crazy adsense bans
https://www.nichepursuits.com/adsense-banned/
https://www.blogohblog.com/dont-let-google-adsense-ban-you/
https://copyblogger.com/better-than-adsense/
censorship google
Google and its subsidiary companies, such as YouTube, have removed or omitted information from its services in order to comply with company policies, legal demands, and government censorship laws.[1]
Numerous governments have asked Google to censor content. In 2012, Google ruled in favor of more than half the requests they received via court orders and phone calls. This did not include China or Iran, who completely blocked the site.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
Google admits to censoring the World Socialist Web Site
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html
https://stopgooglecensorship.online/
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/10/17961806/google-leaked-research-good-censor-censorship-freedom-of-speech-research-china
google state department
https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/09/07/state-department-innovator-goes-to-google/
https://www.theregister.com/2016/03/18/latest_clinton_email_release_google_foreign_policy_efforts/
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
google political censorship
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/01/are-google-facebook-censoring-conservatives-problem-is-more-widespread-than-that/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/dec/04/google-facebook-anti-conservative-bias-claims
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-18/facebook-twitter-google-can-t-be-good-censors-of-politics
free speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
us constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/
https://www.amnesty.org.au/
corporate political donations list
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all-profiles
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors
http://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-crazy-justice-system-random-stuff.html
- if you examine the overall picture for FAANG it's not really pretty. They don't really pay much tax, depend on massive subsidies, are effective monopolies who abuse their positions, employ few people, corrupt, aren't that charitable, aren't that innovative, possibly destroy more jobs, industries, and companies then support, etc? To top it all off, they're actually pretty evil (knowingly evil or accidentally evil?)?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zuckerberg+social+network+opening+scene

The Social Network – FIRST 10 MINUTES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvap4gEOC5I

The Social Network (2010) - First scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rOXj4E4hNQ

The Social Network (2010) - I Was Your Only Friend Scene (9_10) _ Movieclips

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3NLNK72mzI

Renegade Inc _ Competition Is Killing Us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuZ9OlQNufM
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Michelle+Meagher
https://michellemeagher.com/
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/michmeagher
https://twitter.com/michmeagher?lang=en
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/michelle-meagher
https://www.inclusivecompetition.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Competition-Is-Killing-Us-by-Michelle-Meagher-author/9780241423011
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/315/315772/competition-is-killing-us/9780241423011.html
ppe degree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_economics
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/philosophy-politics-and-economics
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/23/ppe-passport-power-degree-oxford
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/hundreds-of-companies-pay-no-tax-says-ato-as-it-releases-latest-corporate-tax-transparency-data/ar-BB1bMdDK?viewall=true&c=7027876119212088235&mkt=en-us
https://dtbnguyen.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-big-5-us-it-firms-arent-unbeatable.html
The ACCC interim report focuses on competition in supplying four services: advertiser ad servers, demand-side platforms, supply-side platforms and publisher ad servers.
The ACCC report said dominated all four services, having up to 90% of impressions in the advertiser ad server space, up to 70% of revenue and up to 80% of impressions in the demand-side platforms, up to 60% of revenue and up to 70% of impressions in the supply-side platforms, and almost all of the impressions in the publisher ad server space.
The ACCC said the following four factors gave Google the edge in ad tech services:
"enabling access to a larger group of advertisers and publishers, as well as better access to greater volume and particular types of ad inventory (which comes from Google's presence across the supply chain as well as its ownership of key ad inventory such as Google Search and YouTube);
"ad targeting capability, which is linked to the breadth and depth of the data available to Google as a result of its activities across consumer-facing and advertising markets;
"ease of use and integration with Google's other services; and
"the performance, quality and price of its services."
When it came to advertiser ad servers, Google held between 80% and 90 % share, the report said.
"Google's high share of impressions suggests that the competitive constraints on Google are not substantial," the ACCC said. "There are number of potential barriers to entry and expansion in the supply of advertiser ad server services including the degree of single-homing, the magnitude of switching costs, and the degree of vertical integration.
"The ACCC is seeking further information on the extent to which these barriers may prevent competitive entry and expansion by smaller rivals."
Google's two demand-side platforms — Google Ads and Display & Video 360 — took between 60% and 70% of the revenue.
"Google's large share of revenue (and impressions) appears to be underpinned by its access to significant ad targeting data, exclusive ad inventory and vertical integration in the ad tech stack," the report said.
"Information suggests that the incentive to single-home with a DSP provider is significant and may be a key barrier to entry and expansion. The ACCC is continuing to examine the role of data and vertical integration as a barrier to entry and expansion."
Google was also the biggest supplier of supply-side platforms, with the ACCC estimating that it took up to 60% of revenue in 2019. And in the case of publisher ad servers, Google Ad Manager held a share of impressions of between 90% and 100% in 2019.
The report said submissions made to the market regulator had alleged that Google had been allegedly engaging in conduct that had limited competition in ad tech services.
https://www.itwire.com/technology-regulation/accc-report-claims-google-dominates-digital-advertising-in-australia.html
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dina+srinivasan
Three years ago, before she became an antitrust scholar whose work laid the blueprint for a new wave of monopoly lawsuits against Big Tech, Dina Srinivasan was a digital advertising executive bored with her job and worried about the bleak outlook for the industry.
"It just felt like, OK, Facebook and Google were going to win, and everybody else is going to lose, and that's just the way the cards were stacked," Srinivasan said. "I don't think this was widely understood."
...
Srinivasan said she had an epiphany in June 2014 when Facebook announced that it would start tracking the behaviour of users across the internet — and outside of its network — to sharpen its ad targeting. Even as her colleagues celebrated the news as an important breakthrough for advertisers, Srinivasan could not shake the feeling that this represented a failure of the free market.
"Who the heck consents to having a company track them across the internet," she remembered thinking. "They could only do it because they had monopoly power to do something that clearly goes against consumer interests."
After leaving the ad world in 2017, she spent the next year researching and writing a paper on why Facebook was a monopoly. She submitted her paper to the websites of about a dozen law reviews. To her surprise, the Berkeley Business Law Journal, which is associated with the University of California, Berkeley's law school, agreed to publish her work. Srinivasan said she cried at the news.
Her Facebook paper quickly captured the attention of regulators. In March 2019, a month after it was published, David Cicilline, the Democratic chair of the House antitrust subcommittee, wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission urging the agency to investigate Facebook on antitrust grounds, citing her paper, among other works. The New York attorney-general's office later asked her to speak to its lawyers about her work.
This year, she took aim with her Stanford Technology Law Review article at the other behemoth of the online ad world: Google. She explained the complex world of online ad exchanges, where display ads are sold and bought in milliseconds. Srinivasan argued that Google dominates nearly all facets of these markets, representing buyers and sellers while also operating the largest exchange.
While other electronic trading markets — namely, financial markets — are heavily regulated to prevent conflicts of interest and unfair advantages of speed and inside information, online ad trading is largely unregulated. She argued that Google's dominance inflated the price of ads — a concept described as a "monopoly tax" in the multistate lawsuit led by Texas.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/everybody-else-is-going-to-lose-tech-industry-exiles-turn-on-google-facebook-20201222-p56ph8.html
In October, Ken Glueck, executive vice-president of Oracle, outlined what he saw as Google's strategy to win in court: kicking the can down the road.
Google would "deny every claim, appeal any adverse decision, [and] run out the clock on every opponent – including government regulators", Glueck said in a blog post. "Even nominal 'losses' for Google are really wins: it can appeal fines and courtroom setbacks for years while its market power continues to grow and competitors disappear. And even if it has to pay something in the end, it will be a drop in Google's very large bucket. It's 'efficient infringement' at global scale."
Oracle has been in litigation with Google since 2010 over the use of Java code in the Android mobile operating system.
Glueck has observed Google's behaviour closely and it looks like he has it down pat. We will find out for sure in 2021.
https://www.itwire.com/open-sauce/news-media-code-ball-firmly-in-federal-govt-s-court.html

Why I Left My $100,000+ Job at Google

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KcMdH8qiuk

https://www.youtube.com/c/CSDojo/videos

https://www.youtube.com/c/JomaOppa/videos

https://www.youtube.com/c/TechLead/videos

https://www.youtube.com/c/TechLeadShow/videos

I'm a Yappie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYB822q4LMk

https://www.youtube.com/c/hellomayuko/videos

https://www.reddit.com/r/AsianMasculinity/comments/bpgsbn/tech_youtubers/