Luigi Zingales...Great insights.
I am a professor of economics. A market to be effective needs competition. As competition decreases the benefits of the market for the consumer decrease as well... until it becomes a monopoly where the consumer has little or no choice. As is the case in social media extremely concentrated industry dominated by very few players.

The idea of portability of your information you post on social media and the response you receive is a great solution. But one could easily see why the dominant players would not want that.
There is a principle in economics "Government may sometimes improve market outcomes" clearly there is a case for government to create content portability thereby increasing competition in social media and improving market outcomes and the benefits derived by the consumers.

Really interesting solution.

I would consider the vial crap leftist vomit on line to be poisonous porn to children and unaware adults.

Only on sites that belong to them. You can start a web site and put anything you want on it and they can't do anything about it. They can't keep you off of the internet.

Now if you post child porn, the government will come after you.

I like your post.

Don't think that I am an orthodox when it comes to software and providers. I think one reason we see things differently is that for a developer 10 may not be the best venue. I am not one, and was more than happy to try out the new platform that suited me well from the beginning.

To reply to your "criticism": at the time 10 came out, the bias of coverage was palpable. I said earlier, it was like the current animosity between right and left in the political arena. Any thinking person would see a red flag there: 10 was not nearly as bad as the reviews stated: only 1 out of 10 had a positive evaluation. As I read them it was obvious that most of them did not even try 10: they simply went with the flow against MS.

Yes, MS quickly added the Start button back which was clearly a capitulation they should not have done.

I fault MS for throwing 10 under the bus. From the beginning they went into the game as the underdog. Markets sense that and hit back hard.

Nadella is a very far cry from the ideal leader who should run MS. It is a tragedy of great companies to suffer this fate. I know what it is like: my own was subject to it recently. Nothing lasts forever.

I've been hacking since DOS 5.0 and professionally supporting everything from Windows 95 up. I've seen everything Microsoft has offered - as well as many of its competitors. There are some things it has gotten right (Windows 2000) and others not so much (Microsoft BOB, Windows ME, Windows CE) - just like every one of their competitors. I could go into detail about Apple's misadventures as well as Xerox, HP, Novell, IBM, and DEC just to name a few, as I've had family members in senior management positions in many of those companies. My family reunions are a bunch of software developers and computer nerds getting together and comparing notes. ;)

To me, the beauty of a computer is not in monolithic use, but in configurable use: it is the adaptability of the UI to the specific user's needs which is an OS' greatest value. An OS has zero other function than to assist the user in running applications. Anything which detracts from that capability is a disservice to the user because it reduces efficiency and value.

You obviously found the changes beneficial to you, and that's great for you. None of the UI updates done to Windows 10 enhanced my ability to be productive, however, but actually did the contrary because they force me to use the computer in a way which doesn't make sense for my job and my needs. I wouldn't have cared that much if there was a way to configure the UI so it was most productive for my needs, but Microsoft has long been heavy-handed in demanding that everyone use the same methodology. That short-sighted and monolithic approach has long been my major bone of contention with them - especially when I can look over at all the Linux skins available (like Enlightenment) which allow the same core functionality but configure the UI to suit the user's tastes and needs. How I wish Microsoft would take a page out of that book!

Just as an aside, but I found the same experience with the Office Ribbon. Where once I could build my own ribbon with just the small icons for the tools I needed (document creation and editing which included a lot of screenshots), now it takes me 30% longer (I've actually tested and timed this) to create the same document due to all the extra clicks necessary to get to the formatting tools I need and the document default settings which I have to disable or override. (I also don't appreciate the huge icons which just take up valuable screen real estate.) I am far more productive using the inferior technology in Open Office than I am using Word because of all those kitchen sinks they threw in there which just get in the way.

"I stand by my statement on Windows 10."

Which is why you hated the criticism - not only my own but that of the magazine articles. If you choose to wear quad-colored glasses that is your prerogative. It is rather infantile, however, to criticize those of us who choose not to.

"You must be one of those who obsessed with the Start button."

Apparently I was not the only one, as they quickly added it back in due to overwhelming customer feedback. And they didn't even wait for another major release that's how much pushback they got. Again, this was the result of their heavy-handed, "Microsoft's way is the only way" approach. They would have been far wiser to simply put in a setting which allowed the user to pick the interface which worked better for them. I still hold out hope that they will eventually move in this direction.

"And there is no question that culturally, Indians are very different than Americans."

Yes, I have firsthand experience although you must abide by HR's "inclusion and diversion" guidelines.

I used to work for GE's financial arm. The nearby Insurance division was staffed exclusively by Indians. Don't know how they got away with it but is was a very stifling environment.

I stand by my statement on Windows 10.

You must be one of those who obsessed with the Start button. I simply don't share your observations. I have been using 10 since it was launched and did not regret one second of it.

"Firefox is also Google based."

I meant that when you search with Firefox, it is Chrome "powered by Ask" that does the search, with no possibility to delete it.

When you search on Firefox the "Search with Google" appears.

I used Firefox as the default for a while then got rid of it due to this "relationship" between the two which apparently goes back to a long time.

"Firefox is also Google based."

Uh, no. Firefox is Mozilla-based (from the original code base of Netscape Navigator). They've consistently been the most IEEE compliant browser (when they've had people to work on their code). They used to be the fastest browser, but then they started adding in a whole bunch of crap that slowed things down. I still use it for some things, but I would prefer that it go back to its less weighty and speedier core.

"It beats me what people adore about Chrome."

For a time, the appeal was two things: easy access to Gmail and speed. When first introduced, Chrome simply beat the pants off everything speed-wise. Now, their browser is a hulking beast which commonly churns up the majority of my memory - and each tab only makes it worse. The problem is that the competition isn't much better. All have become very top-heavy memory hogs. Space hogs, too.

"Google's abusive policies let alone the company culture that has been splashed across the media in recent months is enough to recoil from them in disgust."

Completely agree.

" I think he is selling out to Google: both companies are run by Indians."

An interesting point. I know that the installation of a Chinese/Taiwanese at the head of Micron is certainly not going well for US Micron workers. And there is no question that culturally, Indians are very different than Americans.

"The proper move should have been to write a browser that can compete with Chrome, not to capitulate to it."

You do realize that you are talking about Microsoft, right? They haven't written anything original in years - they have to keep buying all their good ideas from startup companies. ;)

Seriously, though, the big problem at Microsoft (and this comes from personal inside sources) is that their executive management teams don't play well when it comes to funding fights. They don't coordinate their efforts. Every division is trying to outdo their other divisions for resources instead of trying to work together and that culture has driven away a lot of good people. That's a cultural thing that Nadella is still fighting - unsucessfully.

I wouldn't put Microsoft out of the fight just yet, however. They still have their cash cow in Office and billions in cash to throw at any initiative they choose. I'm going to wait until they blow through their $10+ Billion before I make any predictions of doom. I also wouldn't discount their seats on all of the major IEEE initiatives.

"Windows 10 was a great software and only a goat had problems using it."

Uh, I've been a Microsoft Admin for 20 years and I can tell you I HATE the interface on Windows 10. Moving the logout button to the upper right-hand side of the screen when everything you use is in the bottom left? That's stupid. Charms? Give me a break! All I need is another distraction sitting on my desktop taking up compute and network resources. No, thanks! Tiles? Those are for mobile devices - not desktops. Default save is now to the "cloud" (meaning more money for Microsoft) instead of to my computer or a network share. And there's no way to change it. This costs me valuable time and clicks every hour of every day. Having to search for the app I need instead of just being able to navigate right to it? I don't need freaking crutches. And don't get me started on the constant revisions to my bread-and-butter: the Control Panel. Some Microsoft genius just can't leave this crucial administrative feature alone for one version - probably so they can justify the ongoing certification classes.

Computers are there to help facilitate getting things done (meaning applications). All Windows 10 did was put roadblocks in the way of me being productive that I didn't need. I didn't see a single feature in Windows 10 that actually made my life easier. The articles expressing criticisms like those I just cited were spot on in my opinion.

I may add that I am completely happy with Edge, and blocked anything that has to do with Google. Firefox is also Google based.

It beats me what people adore about Chrome. It is very restricted unless you do everything as Google prescribes.

Google's abusive policies let alone the company culture that has been splashed across the media in recent months is enough to recoil from them in disgust. I am sure they have a file on me even though I try to distance myself. I hate to think that MS is turning over the field to them completely.

I think it was a fatal move to hand the internet over to Google:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/...

While I agree with you on Balmer, Nadella does not strike me as someone who will protect the MS brand. I think he is selling out to Google: both companies are run by Indians. Where does loyalty lie? You be the judge.

The proper move should have been to write a browser that can compete with Chrome, not to capitulate to it. When Windows 10 was released, the biased Apple worshipping media slaughtered it. Never mind that most of the criticism was similar to toady's left's "resistance" to everything that is not violently against normal life. Windows 10 was a great software and only a goat had problems using it.

At any rate, I think that "playing nice" is not going to cut it. The opposition will not appreciate that in terms of reciprocating, but will see it as a point of weakness which it is and will take full advantage of it.

"Now MS degraded to the level that it'll rewrite Edge to favor Google's Chrome..."

Actually, I view this as a positive move. Microsoft's heavy-handedness in the Browser game is legendary, and the biggest problem is that until Edge, their browsers were technical crap. That they forced Netscape Navigator out of business due to their unethical (and illegal) business practices still doesn't sit well with me. Add to that their reliance on Microsoft-only technologies like ActiveX and Silverlight (both utter disasters) over industry standards like JavaScript and now HTML 4 and all I could say was good riddance. I can't tell you how many times in the past 20 years of my professional life I've been hosed by a Microsoft update to their browser.

I also view Nadella in a much more positive light than any of his predecessors - especially Balmer. Nadella is finally understanding that an integrated digital community where everyone gets along is much better than constantly butting heads with regulatory bodies such as the EU and the Sherman Antitrust Act. Their recent moves to play nicely with the Linux community with Microsoft Office and even SQL Server and C# have been a welcome breath of fresh air after Balmer's intransigence. Of course much of that might have to do with the way Microsoft is getting slaughtered in the mobile device space and their recognition that if they don't clean up their act, they're going to go the way of IBM - whom they put out of business.

Now there is the very valid point that all this is doing it transferring more power to Google, which I agree is worrisome. But with Opera and Firefox out there as well, I'm hoping that this introduces more IEEE compliance and competition into the field rather than less, but we'll see. The big key will be to see if Bing (Microsoft's search engine) remains in the field, because it is really the only major competitor to Google's. If that dies, then we really will just be seeing a frightening transfer of power to Google.

My take?...they violate the constitution on free speech, they silence to voices of facts and reason while allowing idiots, real racist, real terrorist to subvert the truth and to perpetuate a vial stupidity based only on harmful ideologies all the while, collecting every nugget of information on everyone that participates.

The big question, however, how do you instill moral ethics in any business, corporation, government or people. It's not like moral ethics aren't clearly defined...it's common sense.

I think this is what happens when truth, history and the attainment of the conscious mind are prohibited.
It is clear that there are those that conspire against the conscious human race.

There has to be a solution. Our resourceful bureaucrats should have a way up in their sleeves as they always do.

I was thinking of this. When a company is successful over time, it is inevitable that it'll assume larger market share which is the goal.

Think of Microsoft the way Gates ran it. The problem was that it forced customers to use its products and there was no alternative.

Now MS degraded to the level that it'll rewrite Edge to favor Google's Chrome which is a shameful capitulation by Nadella.

Good stuff. The problems are widely acknowledged if not by all.

The quote from Adam Smith- 'in a competitive economy', does that mean 'there must be competition', or the potential for competition?
The question is partly answered by the example of the Power Ventures company, the use of intermediaries. Existing law prevents competition, except by replication, which cannot work. So, yes the first step is to wipe out the existing laws that prevent competitiors entering as described.