Addressing the Competitive Harms of Opaque Online Surveillance and Recommendation Algorithms

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-01-19 DOI:10.1177/0003603X211066983
Marc Jarsulic
{"title":"Addressing the Competitive Harms of Opaque Online Surveillance and Recommendation Algorithms","authors":"Marc Jarsulic","doi":"10.1177/0003603X211066983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Facebook and Alphabet operate free internet services that are widely used. They provide these services for free because users are online ad targets. Together Facebook and Alphabet have a large share of the market for online advertising in the U.S. Their dominance delivers monopolistic returns, reflected in the persistently high valuations financial markets place on each company. Online ad sales depend on the ability of these platforms to individually target ads and messages to huge numbers of people. Targeting is made possible by surveillance which is large in scale, scope, and effectiveness. User engagement, which helps determine target numbers, is stimulated and directed by “recommendation” algorithms on Facebook and Alphabet’s YouTube platform. These algorithms can affect what users read and view, and can influence their attitudes, emotions, and behavior. While surveillance has negative effects on user privacy, and algorithms have had powerful effects on user attitudes and behavior, platform users have limited knowledge about how these practices operate or their impacts. These information asymmetries between platforms and users have important competitive effects. They divert users from competing platforms that do not engage in these business practices, and inhibit entry and the innovation it would stimulate, thereby helping sustain the monopoly power of dominant incumbents. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and includes rulemaking authority, may be the most effective way to address anticompetitive practices that are technically complex, can evolve rapidly, and are difficult for industry outsiders to observe.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"100 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X211066983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Facebook and Alphabet operate free internet services that are widely used. They provide these services for free because users are online ad targets. Together Facebook and Alphabet have a large share of the market for online advertising in the U.S. Their dominance delivers monopolistic returns, reflected in the persistently high valuations financial markets place on each company. Online ad sales depend on the ability of these platforms to individually target ads and messages to huge numbers of people. Targeting is made possible by surveillance which is large in scale, scope, and effectiveness. User engagement, which helps determine target numbers, is stimulated and directed by “recommendation” algorithms on Facebook and Alphabet’s YouTube platform. These algorithms can affect what users read and view, and can influence their attitudes, emotions, and behavior. While surveillance has negative effects on user privacy, and algorithms have had powerful effects on user attitudes and behavior, platform users have limited knowledge about how these practices operate or their impacts. These information asymmetries between platforms and users have important competitive effects. They divert users from competing platforms that do not engage in these business practices, and inhibit entry and the innovation it would stimulate, thereby helping sustain the monopoly power of dominant incumbents. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and includes rulemaking authority, may be the most effective way to address anticompetitive practices that are technically complex, can evolve rapidly, and are difficult for industry outsiders to observe.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决不透明在线监控和推荐算法的竞争危害
Facebook和Alphabet运营着广泛使用的免费互联网服务。他们免费提供这些服务,因为用户是在线广告的目标。脸书和Alphabet共同在美国在线广告市场占有很大份额。它们的主导地位带来了垄断回报,这反映在金融市场对每家公司的持续高估值上。在线广告销售取决于这些平台向大量用户单独投放广告和信息的能力。通过规模、范围和有效性都很大的监视,可以确定目标。Facebook和Alphabet的YouTube平台上的“推荐”算法刺激和引导了用户参与度,这有助于确定目标数字。这些算法可以影响用户阅读和查看的内容,并可以影响他们的态度、情绪和行为。虽然监控对用户隐私有负面影响,算法对用户态度和行为也有强大影响,但平台用户对这些做法如何运作或其影响的了解有限。平台和用户之间的这些信息不对称具有重要的竞争效应。它们将用户从不参与这些商业行为的竞争平台上转移出去,并抑制进入和创新,从而有助于维持占主导地位的现有企业的垄断力量。《联邦贸易委员会法》第5条禁止“不公平竞争方法”,并包括规则制定权,这可能是解决技术复杂、发展迅速、行业外部难以观察到的反竞争行为的最有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1