Google: A Critic Looks in the Rear View Mirror and Risks a Collision with a Smart Service
May 21, 2025
No AI, just a dinobaby watching the world respond to the tech bros.
Courtney Radsch, a director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty, is not Googley. Her opinion about the Google makes this clear in “Google Broke the Law. It’s Time to Break Up the Company.”
. To which facet of the lovable Googzilla direct her attention. Picking one is difficult. Several of her points were interesting and in line with the intellectual stance of the Guardian, which ran her essay on April 24, 2025. Please, read the original write up and do contribute some money to the Guardian newspaper. Their strident pleas are moving, and I find their escalating way to say “donate” informative.
The first statement I circled was:
These global actions [the different legal hassles Googzilla faces with attendant fines and smarmy explanations] reflect a growing consensus: Google’s power is infrastructural and self-reinforcing. It controls the tools that decide what we know, what we see and who profits. The implications are especially acute for journalism, which has been hollowed out by Google’s ad market manipulation and search favoritism. In an era of generative AI, where foundation models are trained on the open web and commodify news content without compensation, this market power becomes even more perfidious.
The point abut infrastructure and self-reinforcing is accurate. I would point out that Google has been building out its infrastructure and the software “hooks” to make its services “self reinforcing.” The behavior is not new. What’s new is that it seems to be a surprise to some people. Where were the “real” journalists when the Google implemented its Yahoo-influenced advertising system? Where were the “real” journalists when Dr. Jeff Dean and other Googlers were talking and writing about the infrastructure “innovations” at the Google?
The second one was:
… global coordination should be built into enforcement.
I want to mention that “global coordination” is difficult at the present time. Perhaps if the “coordination” began 20 years ago, the process might be easier. Perhaps the author of the essay would like to speak with some people at Europol about the time and procedures required to coordinate to take down a criminal online operation. Tackling an outfit which is used by quite a few people for free is a more difficult, expensive, and resource intensive task. There are some tensions in the world, and the Google is going to have to pay some fines and possibly dump some of its assets to reduce the legal pressure being applied to the company. But Google has big bucks, and money has some value in certain circles. Coordination is possible in enforcement, but it is not exactly the magical spooky action at a distance some may think it is.
The third statement I drew a couple of lines under was:
The courts have shown that Google broke the law. Now, governments must show that the law still has teeth. That means structural remedies, not settlements. Transformation, not tinkering.
News flash. Google is as I type this sentence transforming. If you think the squishy world of search and the two way doors of online advertising were interesting business processes, I suggest one look closely at the artificial intelligence push at the Google. First, it is baked into to Google’s services. I am not sure users know how much Googliness its AI services have. That’s the same problem will looking at Google superficially as people did when the Backdoor was kicked open and the Google emerged. Also, the AI push has the same infrastructure game plan. Exactly who is going to prevent Google from developing its own chips and its next-generation computing infrastructure? Is this action going to come from regulators and lawyers? I don’t think so. These two groups are not closely associated with gradient descents, matrix mathematics, and semi-conductor engineering in my experience. Some individuals in these groups are, but many are users of Google AI, not engineers developing Google AI. I do like the T shirt slogan, “Transformation, not tinkering.”
In summary, I liked the editorial. I have one problem. Google has been being Googley for more than 20 years and now legal action is being taken for yesterday’s businesses at the company. The new Googzilla moves are not even on the essay writer’s, the Guardian’s, or the regulators’ radar.
Net net: Googzilla is rocking to tomorrow, not transformation. You don’t alter the DNA of Googzilla.
Stephen E Arnold, May 21, 2025
Microsoft: What Is a Brand Name?
May 20, 2025
Just the dinobaby operating without Copilot or its ilk.
I know that Palantir Technologies, a firm founded in 2003, used the moniker “Foundry” to describe its platform for government use. My understanding is that Palantir Foundry was a complement to Palantir Gotham. How different were these “platforms”? My recollection is that Palantir used home-brew software and open source to provide the raw materials from which the company shaped its different marketing packages. I view Palantir as a consulting services company with software, including artificial intelligence. The idea is that Palantir can now perform like Harris’ Analyst Notebook as well as deliver semi-custom, industrial-strength solutions to provide unified solutions to thorny information challenges. I like to think of Palantir’s present product and service line up as a Distributed Common Ground Information Service that generally works. About a year ago, Microsoft and Palantir teamed up to market Microsoft – Palantir solutions to governments via “bootcamps.” These are training combined with “here’s what you too can deploy” programs designed to teach and sell the dream of on-time, on-target information for a range of government applications.
I read “Microsoft Is Now Hosting xAI’s Grok 3 Models” and noted this subtitle:
Grok 3 and Grok 3 mini are both coming to Microsoft’s Azure AI Foundry service.
Microsoft’s Foundry service. Is that Palantir’s Foundry, a mash up of Microsoft and Palantir, or something else entirely. The name confuses me, and I wonder if government procurement professionals will be knocked off center as well. The “dream” of smart software is a way to close deals in some countries’ government agencies. However, keeping the branding straight is also important.
What does one call a Foundry with a Grok? Shakespeare suggested that it would smell as sweet no matter what the system was named. Thanks, OpenAI? Good enough.
The write up says:
At Microsoft’s Build developer conference today, the company confirmed it’s expanding its Azure AI Foundry models list to include Grok 3 and Grok 3 mini from xAI.
It is not clear if Microsoft will offer Grok as another large language model or whether [a] Palantir will be able to integrate Grok into its Foundry product, [b] Microsoft Foundry is Microsoft’s own spin on Palantir’s service which is deprecated to some degree, or [c] a way to give Palantir direct, immediate access to the Grok smart software. There are other possibilities as well; for example, Foundry is a snappy name in some government circles. Use what helps close deals with end-of-year money or rev up for new funds seeking smart software.
The write up points out that Sam AI-Man may be annoyed with the addition of Grok to the Microsoft toolkit. Both OpenAI and Grok have some history. Maybe Microsoft is positioning itself as the role of the great mediator, a digital Henry Clay of sorts?
A handful of companies are significant influencers of smart software in some countries’ Microsoft-centric approach to platform technology. Microsoft’s software and systems are so prevalent that Israel did some verbal gymnastics to make clear that Microsoft technology was not used in the Gaza conflict. This is an assertion that I find somewhat difficult to accept.
What is going on with large language models at Microsoft? My take is:
- Microsoft wants to offer a store shelf stocked with LLMs so that consulting service revenue provides evergreen subscription revenue
- Customers who want something different, hot, or new can make a mark on the procurement shopping list and Microsoft will do its version of home delivery, not quite same day but convenient
- Users are not likely to know what smart software is fixing up their Miltonic prose or centering a graphic on a PowerPoint slide.
What about the brand or product name “Foundry”? Answer: Use what helps close deals perhaps? Does Palantir get a payoff? Yep.
Stephen E Arnold, May 20, 2025
Salesforce CEO Criticizes Microsoft, Predicts Split with OpenAI
May 20, 2025
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is very unhappy with Microsoft. Windows Central reports, “Salesforce CEO Says Microsoft Did ‘Pretty Nasty’ Things to Slack and Its OpenAI Partnership May Be a Recipe for Disaster.” Writer Kevin Okemwa reminds us Benioff recently dubbed Microsoft an “OpenAI reseller” and labeled Copilot the new Clippy. Harsh words. Then Okemwa heard Benioff criticizing Microsoft on a recent SaaStr podcast. He tells us:
“According to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff: ‘You can see the horrible things that Microsoft did to Slack before we bought it. That was pretty bad and they were running their playbook and did a lot of dark stuff. And it’s all gotten written up in an EU complaint that Slack made before we bought them.’ Microsoft has a long-standing rivalry with Slack. The messaging platform accused Microsoft of using anti-competitive techniques to maintain its dominance across organizations, including bundling Teams into its Microsoft Office 365 suite.”
But, as readers may have noticed, Teams is no longer bundled into Office 365. Score one for Salesforce. The write-up continues:
“Marc Benioff further indicated that Microsoft’s treatment of Slack was ‘pretty nasty.’ He claimed that the company often employs a similar playbook to gain a competitive advantage over its rivals while referencing ‘browser wars’ with Netscape and Internet Explorer in the late 1990s.”
How did that one work out? Not well for the once-dominant Netscape. Benioff is likely referring to Microsoft’s dirty trick of making IE 1.0 free with Windows. This does seem to be a pattern for the software giant. In the same podcast, the CEO predicts a split between Microsoft and ChatGPT. It is a recent theme of his. Okemwa writes:
“Over the past few months, multiple reports and speculations have surfaced online suggesting that Microsoft’s multi-billion-dollar partnership with OpenAI might be fraying. It all started when OpenAI unveiled its $500 billion Stargate project alongside SoftBank, designed to facilitate the construction of data centers across the United States. The ChatGPT maker had previously been spotted complaining that Microsoft doesn’t meet its cloud computing needs, shifting blame to the tech giant if one of its rivals hit the AGI benchmark first. Consequently, Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status but retains the right of refusal to OpenAI’s projects.”
Who knows how long that right of refusal will last. Microsoft itself seems to be preparing for a future without its frenemy. Will Benioff crow when the partnership is completely destroyed? What will he do if OpenAI buys Chrome and pushes forward with his “everything” app?
Cynthia Murrell, May 20, 2025
Behind Microsoft’s Dogged Copilot Push
May 20, 2025
Writer Simon Batt at XDA foresees a lot of annoyance in Windows users’ future. “Microsoft Will Only Get More Persistent Now that Copilot has Plateaued,” he predicts. Yes, Microsoft has failed to attract as many users to Copilot as it had hoped. It is as if users see through the AI hype. According to Batt, the company famous for doubling down on unpopular ideas will now pester us like never before. This can already be seen in the new way Microsoft harasses Windows 10 users. While it used to suggest every now and then such users purchase a Windows 11-capable device, now it specifically touts Copilot+ machines.
Batt suspects Microsoft will also relentlessly push other products to boost revenue. Especially anything it can bill monthly. Though Windows is ubiquitous, he notes, users can go years between purchases. Many of us, we would add, put off buying a new version until left with little choice. (Any XP users still out there?) He writes:
“When ChatGPT began to take off, I can imagine Microsoft seeing dollar signs when looking at its own assistant, Copilot. They could make special Copilot-enhanced devices (which make them money) that run Copilot locally and encourage people to upgrade to Copilot Pro (which makes them money) and perhaps then pay extra for the Office integration (which makes them money). But now that golden egg hasn’t panned out like Microsoft wants, and now it needs to find a way to help prop up the income while it tries to get Copilot off the ground. This means more ads for the Microsoft Store, more ads for its game store, and more ads for Microsoft 365. Oh, and let’s not forget the ads within Copilot itself. If you thought things were bad now, I have a nasty feeling we’re only just getting started with the ads.”
And they won’t stop, he expects, until most users have embraced Copilot. Microsoft may be creeping toward some painful financial realities.
Cynthia Murrell, May 20, 2025
Google Makes a Giant, Huge, Quantumly Supreme Change
May 19, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
I read “Google’s G Logo Just Got Prettier.” Stunning news. The much loved, intensely technical Google has invented blurring colors. The decision was a result of DeepMind’s smart software and a truly motivated and respected group of artistically-inclined engineers.
Image. The old logo has been reinvented to display a gradient. Was the inspiration the hallucinatory gradient descent in Google’s smart software? Was it a result of a Googler losing his glasses and seeing the old logo as a blend of colors? Was it a result of a chance viewing of a Volvo marketing campaign with a series of images like this:
Image is from Volvo, the automobile company. You can view the original at this link. Hey, buy a Volvo.
The write up says:
Google’s new logo keeps the same letterform, as well as the bright red-yellow-green-blue color sequence, but now those colors blur into each other. The new “G” is Google’s biggest update to its visual identity since retiring serfs for its current sans-serif font, Product Sans, in 2015.
Retiring serifs, not serfs. I know it is just an AI zellenial misstep, but Google is terminating wizards so they can find their future elsewhere. That is just sol helpful.
What does the “new” and revolutionary logo look like. The image below comes from Fast Company which is quick on the artistic side of US big technology outfits. Behold:
Source: Fast Company via the Google I think.
Fast Company explains the forward-leaning design decision:
A gradient is a safe choice for the new “G.” Tech has long been a fan of using gradients in its logos, apps, and branding, with platforms like Instagram and Apple Music tapping into the effect a decade ago. Still today, gradients remain popular, owing to their middle-ground approach to design. They’re safe but visually interesting; soft but defined. They basically go with anything thanks to their color wheel aesthetic. Other Google-owned products have already embraced gradients. YouTube is now using a new red-to-magenta gradient in its UI, and Gemini, Google’s AI tool, also uses them. Now it’s bringing the design element to its flagship Google app.
Yes, innovative.
And Fast Company wraps up the hard hitting design analysis with some Inconel wordsmithing:
it’s not a small change for a behemoth of a company. We’ll never knows how many meetings, iterations, and deliberations went into making that little blur effect, but we can safely guess it was many.
Yep, guess.
Stephen E Arnold, May 19, 2025
Which Browsers Devour the Most User Data?
May 19, 2025
Those concerned about data privacy may want to consider some advice from TechRadar: “These Are the Worst Web Browsers for Sucking Up All Your Data, So You May Want to Stop Using Them.” Citing research from Surfshark, writer Benedict Collins reports some of the most-used browsers are also the most ravenous. He tells us:
“Analyzing download statistics from AppMagic, Surfshark found Google’s Chrome and Apple‘s Safari account for 90% of the world’s mobile browser downloads. However, Chrome sucks up 20 different types of data while being used, including contact info, location, browsing history, and user content, and is the only browser to collect payment methods, card numbers, or bank account details. … Microsoft‘s Bing took second place for data collection, hoovering up 12 types of data, closely followed by Pi Browser in third place with nine data types, with Safari and Firefox collecting eight types and sharing fourth place.”
Et tu, Firefox? Collins notes the study found Brave and Tor to be the least data-hungry. The former collects identifiers and usage data. Tor, famously, collects no data at all. Both are free, though Brave sells add-ons and Tor accepts donations. The write-up continues:
“When it comes to the types of data collected, Pi Browser, Edge, and Bing all collected the most tracking data, usually sold to third parties to be used for targeted advertising. Pi Browser collects browsing history, search history, device ID, product interaction, and advertisement data, while Edge collects customer support request data, and Bing collects user ID data.”
For anyone unfamiliar, Pi Browser is designed for use with decentralized (blockchain) applications. We learn that, on mobile devices in the US, Chrome captures 43% of browser usage, while Safari captures 50%. Collins reminds readers there are ways to safeguard one’s data, though we would add none are total or foolproof. He also points us to TechRadar’s guide to the best VPNs for another layer of security.
Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2025
Grok and the Dog Which Ate the Homework
May 16, 2025
![dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb")
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.
I remember the Tesla full self driving service. Is that available? I remember the big SpaceX rocket ship. Are those blowing up after launch? I now have to remember an “unauthorized modification” to xAI’s smart software Grok. Wow. So many items to tuck into my 80 year old brain.
I read “xAI Blames Grok’s Obsession with White Genocide on an Unauthorized Modification.” Do I believe this assertion? Of course, I believe everything I read on the sad, ad-choked, AI content bedeviled Internet.
Let’s look at the gems of truth in the report.
First, what is an unauthorized modification of a complex software humming along happily in Silicon Valley and— of all places — Memphis, a lovely town indeed. The unauthorized modification— whatever that is— caused a “bug in its AI-powered Grok chatbot.” If I understand this, a savvy person changed something he, she, or it was not supposed to modify. That change then caused a “bug.” I thought Grace Hopper nailed the idea of a “bug” when she pulled an insect from one of the dinobaby’s favorite systems, the Harvard Mark II. Are their insects at the X shops? Are these unauthorized insects interacting with unauthorized entities making changes that propagate more bugs? Yes.
Second, the malfunction occurs when “@grok” is used as a tag. I believe this because the “unauthorized modification” fiddled with the user mappings and jiggled scripts to allow the “white genocide” content to appear. This is definitely not hallucination; it is an “unauthorized modification.” (Did you know that the version of Grok available via x.com cannot return information from X.com (formerly Twitter) content. Strange? Of course not.
Third, I know that Grok, xAI, and the other X entities have “internal policies and core values.” Violating these is improper. The company — like other self regulated entities — “conducted a thorough investigation.” Absolutely. Coders at X are well equipped to perform investigations. That’s why X.com personnel are in such demand as advisors to law enforcement and cyber fraud agencies.
Finally, xAI is going to publish system prompts on Microsoft GitHub. Yes, that will definitely curtail the unauthorized modifications and bugs at X entities. What a bold solution.
The cited write up is definitely not on the same page as this dinobaby. The article reports:
A study by SaferAI, a nonprofit aiming to improve the accountability of AI labs, found xAI ranks poorly on safety among its peers, owing to its “very weak” risk management practices. Earlier this month, xAI missed a self-imposed deadline to publish a finalized AI safety framework.
This negative report may be expanded to make the case that an exploding rocket or a wonky full self driving vehicle is not safe. Everyone must believe X outfits. The company is a paragon of veracity, excellent engineering, and delivering exactly what it says it will provide. That is the way you must respond.
Stephen E Arnold, May 16, 2025
Apple AI Is AImless: Better Than Fire, Ready AIm
May 16, 2025
Apple’s Problems Rebuilding Siri
Apple is a dramatist worthy of reality TV. According to MSN, Apple’s leaders are fighting each other says the article, “New Siri Report Reveals Epic Dysfunction Within Apple — But There’s Hope.” There’s so many issues with Apple’s leaders that Siri 2.0 is delayed until 2026.
Managerial styles and backroom ambitions clashed within Apple’s teams. John Giannandrea heads Siri and has since 2018. He was hired to lead Siri and an AI group. Siri engineers claim they are treated like second class citizens. Their situation worsened when Craig Federighi’s software team released features and updates.
The two leaders are very different:
“Federighi was placed in charge of the Siri overhaul in March, alongside his number two Mike Rockwell — who created the Apple Vision Pro headset— as Apple attempts to revive its Siri revamp. The difference between Giannandrea and Federighi appears to be the difference between the tortoise and the hare. John is allegedly more of a listener and slow mover who lets those underneath him take charge of the work, especially his number two Robby Walker. He reportedly preferred incremental updates and was repeatedly cited as a problem with Siri development. Meanwhile, Federighi is described as brash and quick but very efficient and knowledgeable. Supposedly, Giannandrea’s “relaxed culture” lead to other engineers dubbing his AI team: AIMLess.”
The two teams are at each other’s throats. Projects are getting done but they’re arguing over the means of how to do them. Siri 2.0 is caught in the crossfire like a child of divorce. The teams need to put their egos aside or someone in charge of both needs to make them play nicely.
Whitney Grace, May 16, 2025
Complexity: Good Enough Is Now the Best Some Can Do at Google-
May 15, 2025
![dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb")
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.
I read a post called “Working on Complex Systems: What I Learned Working at Google.” The write up is a thoughtful checklist of insights, lessons, and Gregorian engineering chants a “coder” learned in the online advertising company. I want to point out that I admire the amount of money and power the Google has amassed from its reinvention of the GoTo-Overture-Yahoo advertising approach.
A Silicon Valley executive looks at past due invoices. The government has ordered the company to be broken up and levied large fines for improper behavior in the marketplace. Thanks, ChatGPT. Definitely good enough.
The essay in The Coder Cafe presents an engineer’s learnings after Google began to develop products and services tangential to search hegemony, selling ads, and shaping information flows.
The approach is to differentiate complexity from complicated systems. What is interesting about the checklists is that one hearkens back to the way Google used to work in the Backrub and early pre-advertising days at Google. Let’s focus on complex because that illuminates where Google wants to direct its business, its professionals, its users, and the pesky thicket of regulators who bedevil the Google 24×7.
Here’s the list of characteristics of complex systems. Keep in mind that “systems” means software, programming, algorithms, and the gizmos required to make the non-fungible work, mostly.
- Emergent behavior
- Delayed consequences
- Optimization (local optimization versus global optimization)
- Hysteresis (I think this is cultural momentum or path dependent actions)
- Nonlinearity
Each of these is a study area for people at the Santa Fe Institute. I have on my desk a copy of The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution and the shorter Reinventing the Sacred, both by Stuart A. Kauffman. As a point of reference Origins is 700 pages and Reinventing about 300. Each of the cited articles five topics gets attention.
The context of emergent behavior in human- and probably some machine- created code is that it is capable of producing “complex systems.” Dr. Kauffman does a very good job of demonstrating how quite simple methods yield emergent behavior. Instead of a mess or a nice tidy solution, there is considerable activity at the boundaries of complexity and stability. Emergence seems to be associated with these boundary conditions: A little bit of chaos, a little bit of stability.
The other four items in the list are optimization. Dr. Kauffman points out is a consequence of the simple decisions which take place in the micro and macroscopic world. Non-linearity is a feature of emergent systems. The long-term consequences of certain emergent behavior can be difficult to predict. Finally, the notion of momentum keeps some actions or reactions in place through time units.
What the essay reveals, in my opinion, that:
- Google’s work environment is positioned as a fundamental force. Dr. Kauffman and his colleagues at the Santa Fe Institute may find some similarities between the Google and the mathematical world at the research institute. Google wants to be the prime mover; the Santa Fe Institute wants to understand, explain, and make useful its work.
- The lingo of the cited essay suggests that Google is anchored in the boundary between chaos and order. Thus, Google’s activities are in effect trials and errors intended to allow Google to adapt and survive in its environment. In short, Google is a fundamental force.
- The “leadership” of Google does not lead; leadership is given over to the rules or laws of emergence as described by Dr. Kauffman and his colleagues at the Santa Fe Institute.
Net net: Google cannot produce good products. Google can try to emulate emergence, but it has to find a way to compress time to allow many more variants. Hopefully one of those variants with be good enough for the company to survive. Google understands the probability functions that drive emergence. After two decades of product launches and product failures, the company remains firmly anchored in two chunks of bedrock:
First, the company borrows or buys. Google does not innovate. Whether the CLEVER method, the billion dollar Yahoo inspiration for ads, or YouTube, Bell Labs and Thomas Edison are not part of the Google momentum. Advertising is.
Second, Google’s current management team is betting that emergence will work at Google. The question is, “Will it?”
I am not sure bright people like those who work at Google can identify the winners from an emergent approach and then create the environment for those winners to thrive, grow, and create more winners. Gluing cheese to pizza and ramping up marketing for Google’s leadership in fields ranging from quantum computing to smart software is now just good enough. One final question: “What happens if the advertising money pipeline gets cut off?”
Stephen E Arnold, May 15, 2025
The Zuck Plays Defense: The Opposing Line Is Huge, Dude
May 15, 2025
The BBC reports that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has been in the news lately for his company being on trial: “Mark Zuckerberg Defends Meta In Social Media Monopoly Trial.” Meta and Zuckerberg are on trail for antitrust allegations that the company has a monopoly on social media. Zuckerberg testified in 2020 when the FTC brought the case to court.
The allegations are that Zuckerberg dominated the social media market when it acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. The FTC wants Meta to split apart by forcing Instagram and WhatsApp into separate entities. Meta argues there’s plenty of competition with X, YouTube, and TikTok. Zuckerberg was the first to testify in the trial expected to last until July 2025.
The FTC says that Meta bought rivals because it was easier to acquire them than compete with them:
“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” said FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson in his opening statement at Monday’s trial. Meta countered that the lawsuit from the FTC, which originally reviewed and approved both those acquisitions, was “misguided”.
Meta ‘acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to improve and grow them alongside Facebook’, the company’s attorney Mark Hansen argued.
The FTC lawyer cited a 2012 memo from Mr Zuckerberg in which he discusses the importance of “neutralising” Instagram.
Mr Matheson called that message “a smoking gun”.”
Meta argues that when they acquired the competing platforms that it made them better for users. Instagram accounts for over half of Meta’s advertising revenue. Meta also donated to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Zuckerberg repeatedly petitions Trump to have the FTC charges dropped. The FTC has a harder case to prove than when Google was sued for monopolizing search. I wonder if the prosecution’s attorneys have read Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.
Whitney Grace, May 15, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
