Maggie's Farm

I work with Google, Amazon and Facebook pretty regularly.
In order of willingness to be open and somewhat square-dealing, my experience is:
Amazon (though very difficult to negotiate contracts with)
Facebook
Google

Google is, by far, the worst offender in terms of being bad for other businesses as well as consumers. That's not to say they don't have a great product or add value. But they are just pains in the ass to work with. They swing their weight around like nobody's business and don't care whether you benefit or not. They are convinced their size is what makes them 'right' and 'smarter' (I used to meet with one rep when Google was trying to break into the children's market and I kept trying to explain the legal and trade agreements which make doing business in that field so difficult. She kept saying "we're Google, we'll get around all that." They didn't)

Facebook is actually pretty fun to work with, and they are willing to TRY to work with most firms. They don't necessarily believe their size proves how right they are in what they do, but they do use their size as leverage, as anyone would. However, they fail to see how their model is actually undermining and destroying the businesses which feed their pages. In other words, without content, they are useless, and they are sucking the blood (ad revenue) away from every single publisher. If publishers throw up subscription walls, Facebook loses. If publishers lose too much ad revenue, and go out of business, Facebook loses. Facebook is trying now to work more closely with publishers. It's a weird dynamic, and I'm not entirely sure it's going to work for either side in an effective manner.

Amazon is more concerned with getting consumers what they want, which makes them easy to work with. Tough to negotiate with, for sure, but that's because they probably control and touch more data points on individuals than any company other than Google. But I'd say they have MORE data than Google, since they can link it all back to purchase behavior.

I don't consider any of them to be negative influences. People who think Standard Oil was "bad" fail to review history in an astute manner. By the time anti-trust kicked in with them, they'd already lost most of their share of major markets. They were already in decline. But Standard Oil DID consolidate markets, and bring something to widely available and affordable use, which would've been difficult to do if they hadn't been a very large 'robber baron'. And people also forget that Standard Oil helped break the backs of the railroads which had been dominating the economy, and also helped the rise of steel.

The FANGs (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) are going to be replaced someday. Remember when IBM was the Death Star? What about when Microsoft was? Oracle was for a brief moment, too. GE and GM were scary monsters, too.

Where are they all now?

That article was shared with me a few days ago with a circle of friends.
My only question is whether or not the black nuclear family supports black supremacy? If not, why?

It's an unsupportable claim she is making, she knows it, but by making it she makes herself relevant in some fashion. Most claims of racism (like the events at the NYU dorms last year, or the event at the Air Force Academy) are about getting attention when there is, relatively speaking, little racism taking place.

So something has to be created to create the outrage which is required.

Which leads to incidents like these.

There's enough REAL racism to focus on to keep the conversation going. But the knowledge that real racism is in decline and almost obliterated kills a money industry in the US. Who wants to keep talking about the very rare events of true racism when you can keep creating false racism to generate interest (and money)?