StrikingViper69
Shredding scales and making sales
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
I think any move against Facebook (or any other "big tech") would be very dangerous.
The reason given for breaking up the big tech companies is that they are "too big".
What Warren really means, is that they are too successfull.
These companies have provided value, they have grown. They provided more value, and continued to grow.
Their only crime is being really good at what they do.
At what point should the government move in on what you do, and break apart your business, because you became too good...?
Should we break up Bon Jovi because they're songs are too popular...?
These arguments make no sense in any other field...
There are two arguments in this thread trying to justify the breakup:
Facebook has a Monopoly
I assume this argument comes from a point of "monopolies are bad and detrimental to competition". I'd argue that in a free market, monopolies are not a problem. The only time a monopoly is detrimental, is when artificial barriers to market come into play. For example... lets say the government broke up a "monopoly", then issued legislation and created licences to "protect" the public from this happening again.
What has happened? The government now directly controls anyone's ability to compete.
Let's say Facebook was abusing the market. Maybe they have pumped prices because they can? When you price gouge, you create an incentive for competition. Facebook was started in someones basement. If they price gouged.. the incentive to create an alternative, with lower prices... and still make a killing, becomes huge.
The only way a monopoly can exist in a free market, is by either offering more value or lower prices, than anyone else can. And what's the problem with that?
The only way an abusive monopoly can exist, is with the help of the government protecting their market share.
Facebook can control peoples perception of reality
Sure... they can control what sort of posts you see in your news feed... what sort of adverts you see...
You can also choose not to use Facebook, or not to take news from it...
Facebook cannot censor anything, censoring is an act only possible by the government. When Facebook exercises their right to decide who sees what... it is using Freedom of speech.
You can say what you want. Why shouldn't Facebook have the same option?
Facebook can influence a lot of people, sure. But so what? So can newspapers. News networks. So can you.
People can also leave Facebook.
What to do?
I think advocating the government break them up, is to strike another blow against freedom, and I think what little freedom we can enjoy would only disappear faster were the government to act on this.
Personally I think Facebook is biassed, and is pushing an agenda... and I don't like it.
The reason given for breaking up the big tech companies is that they are "too big".
What Warren really means, is that they are too successfull.
These companies have provided value, they have grown. They provided more value, and continued to grow.
Their only crime is being really good at what they do.
At what point should the government move in on what you do, and break apart your business, because you became too good...?
Should we break up Bon Jovi because they're songs are too popular...?
These arguments make no sense in any other field...
There are two arguments in this thread trying to justify the breakup:
- Facebook has a monopoly
- Facebook has the ability to control peoples perception of reality, which is dangerous, therefore should be broken up
Facebook has a Monopoly
I assume this argument comes from a point of "monopolies are bad and detrimental to competition". I'd argue that in a free market, monopolies are not a problem. The only time a monopoly is detrimental, is when artificial barriers to market come into play. For example... lets say the government broke up a "monopoly", then issued legislation and created licences to "protect" the public from this happening again.
What has happened? The government now directly controls anyone's ability to compete.
Let's say Facebook was abusing the market. Maybe they have pumped prices because they can? When you price gouge, you create an incentive for competition. Facebook was started in someones basement. If they price gouged.. the incentive to create an alternative, with lower prices... and still make a killing, becomes huge.
The only way a monopoly can exist in a free market, is by either offering more value or lower prices, than anyone else can. And what's the problem with that?
The only way an abusive monopoly can exist, is with the help of the government protecting their market share.
Facebook can control peoples perception of reality
Sure... they can control what sort of posts you see in your news feed... what sort of adverts you see...
You can also choose not to use Facebook, or not to take news from it...
Facebook cannot censor anything, censoring is an act only possible by the government. When Facebook exercises their right to decide who sees what... it is using Freedom of speech.
You can say what you want. Why shouldn't Facebook have the same option?
Facebook can influence a lot of people, sure. But so what? So can newspapers. News networks. So can you.
People can also leave Facebook.
What to do?
I think advocating the government break them up, is to strike another blow against freedom, and I think what little freedom we can enjoy would only disappear faster were the government to act on this.
Personally I think Facebook is biassed, and is pushing an agenda... and I don't like it.
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.