And who would do that? Even if technically possible, there is no one willing to do it.
FTC, if they weren't captured.
Readit NewsDead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
RoyGBivCap commented on Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it washingtonpost.com/techno... · Posted by u/pseudolus
RoyGBivCap commented on Goodreads was the future of book reviews, then Amazon bought it washingtonpost.com/techno... · Posted by u/pseudolus
Goodreads wasn't "the future of book reviews", it was a good review site that might have innovated great new things or might not have at all.
But regardless, Amazon should never have been allowed to acquire it -- it was incredibly anti-competitive.
Amazon never wanted to do anything with Goodreads at all -- as demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't done anything. It was a purely defensive move to prevent anyone else from acquiring or partnering with Goodreads, because their database of books and reviews could be used to instantly start competing with Amazon's book business. Amazon snuffed out that threat of competition in an instant.
Full disclosure, I'm an author who has self published a few things on Amazon and setup author stuff on amazon and goodreads.
>as demonstrated by the fact that it hasn't done anything.
There are links between the two. You can buy my books on amazon (the dropdown supports other vendors) from their Goodreads pages.
But to your point about anticompetitive, I completely agree.
Why are corporations even allowed to just buy other corporations, at all?
A shitty bank bought my bank and promptly made everything about it shittier. Why is this even allowed at all? Companies buying other companies is about the most fundamentally anti-competitive thing there is.
RoyGBivCap commented on Twitter now requires an account to view tweets techcrunch.com/2023/06/30... · Posted by u/celsoazevedo
> 3. We absolutely will take legal action against those who stole our data…
What does “our” refer to here? Does Twitter (i.e. musk) own the data in any sense? Or does he mean it as “we the people’s data”?
Very off-putting to read that sentence. Obviously he’s trying to monetize the user generated data in this LLM rush as other avenues to monetizations have flopped.
I can't speak for him, just relaying the information.
But I'm happy to speculate: Organizations violated the twitter TOS by scraping, and he's going to sue the organizations for it.
Publishing what was said is more "just the facts, please" than editorializing the response, as shitty PR-speak as it is.