The Entrepreneur Forum | Financial Freedom | Starting a Business | Motivation | Money | Success

Welcome to the only entrepreneur forum dedicated to building life-changing wealth.

Build a Fastlane business. Earn real financial freedom. Join free.

Join over 80,000 entrepreneurs who have rejected the paradigm of mediocrity and said "NO!" to underpaid jobs, ascetic frugality, and suffocating savings rituals— learn how to build a Fastlane business that pays both freedom and lifestyle affluence.

Free registration at the forum removes this block.

Elizabeth Warren: Break up Big Tech

StrikingViper69

Shredding scales and making sales
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
167%
Dec 3, 2018
1,448
2,417
UK
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:
  1. Facebook has a monopoly
  2. 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.

NovaAria

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Jul 18, 2018
118
338
For all we know, one day Facebook, Google, Twitter and Amazon will think that having people learn about internet entrepreneurship is too dangerous for them and will redirect their searches towards the nearest addiction provider. They are a private company and it's in their rights.
I pity the Indian (and soon sub-Saharan Africans) next generations, whose internet access will be generously provided by facebook and other private interests. These kids will hopefully be good products our marketers are willing to pay for.
 

splok

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
174%
Jul 20, 2012
673
1,172
So government control of our perceptions is the rational alternative?
Not sure who's arguing for that, but it isn't me (my first post in the thread was arguing against a breakup). But since you bring it up, do you think having a handful of companies control practically everything that's consumed will make this more or less likely?

I don't think it's unreasonable to require some level of free-speech protection for a company to enjoy safe-harbor protections though. (I'm not an expert on it, but I'm pretty sure that was the intent of the existing law as written, though it's been unenforced and easy to work around afaik.) If Google wants to "organize the world's information", then that's great, but once they start curating that content to push their own agenda, they, at the very least, should be responsible for the content they present.
 

G-Man

Cantankerous Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
544%
Jan 13, 2014
1,992
10,833
Realistically... These companies should just move HQs to a more politically reasonable country and call it a day. There are countries that would and should feel privileged to have them and welcome them with open arms.

Agreed. That country is called Texas.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Xeon

All Cars Kneel Before Pagani.
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
191%
Sep 3, 2017
2,427
4,628
Singapore
Please don't break up FB.
I read that FB is planning to consolidate WhatsApp, IG and FB into one seamless platform recently, which means it will make it easier to run ads to target consumers since everything will be less fragmented.

FB ads are like a godsend tool to reach consumers.

Please do everything in your power to break up Amazon. Nowadays e-commerce = Amazon, and I dislike that.
 

ExaltedLife

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
206%
Nov 10, 2015
400
822
31
Please don't break up FB.
I read that FB is planning to consolidate WhatsApp, IG and FB into one seamless platform recently, which means it will make it easier to run ads to target consumers since everything will be less fragmented.

FB ads are like a godsend tool to reach consumers.

Please do everything in your power to break up Amazon. Nowadays e-commerce = Amazon, and I dislike that.

So there's no principle here
 

ZF Lee

Legendary Contributor
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
180%
Jul 27, 2016
2,840
5,113
25
Malaysia
Agreed. That country is called Texas.
After reading about the Alamo, I can see why! :)

Realistically... These companies should just move HQs to a more politically reasonable country and call it a day. There are countries that would and should feel privileged to have them and welcome them with open arms.
Let me guess on the candidates? Europe? China?

Same thing happened to my country. GrabCar, one of Uber's top competitors, was actually founded by one of my countrymen, the son of the Honda distributor here. Things got slow for the new-fledged startup in Malaysia, as it was a tech-based company. We don't have rapidly executed policies here. So they went to set HQ in Singapore, and got what they needed to eventually run Uber out of the region.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

MJ DeMarco

I followed the science; all I found was money.
Staff member
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
445%
Jul 23, 2007
38,079
169,497
Utah
I don't want to hand it over to Pocahontas either.

I don't want anything handed to her. It conflicts my soul that she voiced something I'd actually agree with it, outside of the government executing it because everything the government touches turns to shit.

I guess given a choice I'd rather have more power concentrated in corporate interests than government. Either way, I don't think anyone wins.

What gives her the right?

What gives any politician the right? Lady Liberty has been raped for nearly a century...

"Introducing search.gov! From the same people who brought you healthcare.gov. We get the propaganda right so you dont have to read alternative viewpoints assembled by an evil business. Remember, we know what's best for you."

Not suggesting the government "take control" or do anything but to mandate a separation of powers, like a knife. Once the knife is removed, so does the government's involvement.

I don't want the government in charge of anything.

My opinion on this topic only changed recently after seeing the high-level collusion on what these seemingly autonomous companies did to Alex Jones. Why? Because most of the shit he says is tabloid and anti-establishment? He's the National Enquirer of the internet -- most of the shit he says is wrong but once in a blue moon he hits something, the old broken clock is right twice a day. (No, I don't follow AJ other than to research what happened a while back)

While I'm a free-market person, at some point the free market won't work because the battles won't be winnable because the aggressor has become too big and too dominant.

When you have an army of tanks and machine guns while your "free market" opponents are using sticks and stones, the free market won't matter. The technocrats will smash any foe, or eat up any free market alternative. Or when you question the technocrats, you are exiled and banished from the plantation, as done with AJ.

So now I feel its a choice between cutting off my thumb or cutting of my big toe.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
Not suggesting the government "take control" or do anything but to mandate a separation of powers, like a knife. Once the knife is removed, so does the government's involvement.

While I'm a free-market person, at some point the free market won't work because the battles won't be winnable because the aggressor has become too big and too dominant.

I definitely see your point here and agree that is how it should be done, if it is done. However, we have a pretty good track record of the government never making things this simple.

To clarify my "take control" comments...

My point was that they essentially do take control in order to divide it up. Do you think they will give ALL the control back? If they don't, and they wont, they 100% are taking control. Bezos won't be left in control of all 10 Amazon Jrs. If he did what would the point of the break up have been? It is theft.

They will form "the bureau of economic trust management" or some such nonsense and employ 2000 people just to insert themselves in the daily lives of companies. It will be a transition that probably lasts decades. Decades where sentiment after being fed up with how terrible the companies perform under these hostile circumstances could flip towards takeover.

Look at Obamacare, probably the best example of this half measure... They couldn't get full control back in 09, but they could make it bad enough where people are all but begging for single payer now.

I still believe the market can take care of these concerns better than intervention of any kind.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
Last edited:

MJ DeMarco

I followed the science; all I found was money.
Staff member
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
445%
Jul 23, 2007
38,079
169,497
Utah
My point was that they essentially do take control in order to divide it up.

Didn't GM and AIG return to autonomy after government meddling? If so, there is some history with government involvement, then a step back.
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
Didn't GM and AIG return to autonomy after government meddling? If so, there is some history with government involvement, then a step back.

Fair point. I didn't think of them. I think it is definitely worth some research.
 

Maxboost

Silver Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
214%
Apr 4, 2016
403
861
44
I definitely see your point here and agree that is how it should be done, if it is done. However, we have a pretty good track record of the government never making things this simple.

To clarify my "take control" comments... Please know they were not directed at you. I can absolutely agree to disagree to a well thought out argument and you have made exceptional points.

My point was that they essentially do take control in order to divide it up. Do you think they will give ALL the control back? I don't, but that is purely my speculation and my distrust of government talking.

They will form "the bureau of economic trust management" or some such nonsense and employ 2000 people just to insert themselves in the daily lives of companies. It will be a transition that probably lasts decades. Decades where sentiment after being fed up with how terrible the companies perform under these hostile circumstances could flip towards takeover.

Look at Obamacare, probably the best example of this half measure... They couldn't get full control back in 09, but they could make it bad enough where people are all but begging for single payer now.

I still believe the market can take care of these concerns better than intervention of any kind.

This is why I don't consider myself a libertarian anymore. It's not based on common sense and reality. Libertarians are very similar to socialist (not talking about you) but are too ideological which can have disastrous results when this ideology is taken to the extreme. To have no government regulations is absolutely crazy.

I say this as free market capitalist and a believer in Adam Smith's "invisible" hand theory.

Government regulation is ONLY to be used when there is a gross abuse of power and MARKET FAILURE which already occurred with Big Tech firms like Google, Youtube, Facebook, twitter and media in general.

I don't follow Eddie Bravo and I believe he is crazy but he explained the Rockerfellers and the first time the government used ANTI trust laws against a giant monopoly.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5QhH6LgYpM

Also Tim Poole exposed how these social media companies are at odds with the US constitution

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2ouS_JF7U


After watching this clip, do you honestly believe that the "free market" would have corrected itself? Would you be comfortable with 1 person controlling the energy of the entire United States or Social Media enfluencing elections?
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Not Most People

"If everyone else is doing it, its probably wrong"
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
265%
Jan 28, 2019
108
286
Scottsdale, AZ
Lots of valid points here.

I usually tend to side with the view that's against more government intervention.

I think in this case, the idea of breaking up the tech giants who have so much influence has some merit (in theory), but I just can't see the government pulling it off in an effective way

I think this is more of a move to get votes from anti-big-business voters than to actually give a better chance for smaller businesses to succeed.

Let's say some of these big tech business did get broken up or some part of their business changed - they will still have the power to buy up smaller competitors and, like someone mentioned earlier, they are all global brands at this point so how much good does the government getting into the middle of it really do?

I think there's a higher likelihood of the market correcting itself. It's easy to look at those companies and say it's impossible for the competition, but there's still plenty of great tech-based companies on the rise.

The tech sector also evolves and changes extremely fast - the chances that there will be no other big players to rise up in the next 2-5 years because these other behemoths "automatically crush the competition" seems unlikely to me

Also, how do you decide what companies get broken up or regulated? What's the criteria? It's almost impossible to think of a fair way to do it

As for censoring information, I do believe that to be a problem, but it's not just a problem that Google and Apple and Facebook have. News companies for decades now have been biased in what news they report or don't. We all know that MSNBC swings liberal and Fox News swings conservative. That's something that I believe is almost a separate, "bigger" issue that simply breaking up tech giants isn't going to effectively solve
 

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
@Maxboost your post is so full of straw I am going against my better judgement giving it the time of day.

This is why I don't consider myself a libertarian anymore. It's not based on common sense and reality.
So you are the authority on what common sense and reality are?

Libertarians are very similar to socialist (not talking about you) but are too ideological which can have disastrous results when this ideology is taken to the extreme. To have no government regulations is absolutely crazy.
Similar to socialist... Wow! Interesting! I never once said there should be no government regulations. I said I believe the market will deal with our concerns better than intervening with big tech.

Think about this as an example... You have Joes Shoe Shop, and Joe is an outspoken racist. Uses it in his marketing... Whatever... Without need for intervention, he is going to lose customers because he is an a**hole. Almost every grievance in this thread about these companies can be compared to racist Joe. If enough people get pissed off... Alternatives will become viable.

I say this as free market capitalist and a believer in Adam Smith's "invisible" hand theory.

Government regulation is ONLY to be used when there is a gross abuse of power and MARKET FAILURE which already occurred with Big Tech firms like Google, Youtube, Facebook, twitter and media in general.

What exactly has "FAILED"? All transactions with all of these companies are still voluntary. People still choose them over competitors freely and happily. What would happen if Bezos doubled the price of every amazon item? A monopoly could do that. Bezos can't. Amazon would die in short order.

Bottom line we still have a choice. There are no monopolies here.

I also think elasticity of demand matters too. How important is it that people have a facebook? It is optional entertainment not even close to being comparable to energy. Twitter and Facebook are competitors.

After watching this clip, do you honestly believe that the "free market" would have corrected itself? Would you be comfortable with 1 person controlling the energy of the entire United States or Social Media enfluencing elections?
I actually do believe the market would have corrected itself. Rockefeller was only acting in the best interest of his shareholders... He was a good businessman that eventually did in fact have competition. They were small, but gave him hell. The government still broke it up and he controlled all of the smaller firms anyway. The entire situation was largely considered a government failure. Mostly by the folks that wanted to further punish his success. They traded a monopoly for a cartel. Reducing his control any further than that would have been downright theft.

Despite his control of the smaller firms... Look at the country today. The market was actually what took care of business on the domestic distribution side of things.

We do have the majority of oil production under control of a cartel today, and you are evidently OK with it, and it isn't Rockefeller's. It is a government established cartel... But we all know government are more benevolent then the rest of us. Government is allowed a monopoly in every country on earth. I will cheer the day when countries HAVE to leave OPEC in order to compete... and that day is not far off. Thus the GLOBAL MARKET STILL PREVAILS.
 
Last edited:

NovaAria

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Jul 18, 2018
118
338
I think there's a higher likelihood of the market correcting itself. It's easy to look at those companies and say it's impossible for the competition, but there's still plenty of great tech-based companies on the rise.

I like your optimism, but something must still be done. The market isn't a magical divine entity that seeks perfect balance. Any time something new that had the potential to grow showed up, the major companies simply bought it out. Either to integrate it, or to strangle it.
That and, while we're waiting for a major correction to happen, an entire generation is growing up with facebook, youtube and twitter as their sole connections to the rest of society.

This also reminds me of what's happening in china. If you want to release a game in china, the game must still follow common laws and regulations. A racing game must still display speed limits and the cars in it must never go beyond them. Why? Because the younger generations discover the outside world through games and electronic entertainment, and so they must be educated through it. These words are from the ministry of culture.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

MTEE1985

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
425%
Jun 12, 2018
685
2,914
Arizona
Ok, I’m going to ask a dumb question here folks.

Can anybody explain exactly what the net negative is of these companies and their size?

All I’ve ever heard regarding Amazon is “the poor mom and pop stores” which ignores all the opportunity (and 250,000 jobs) they have created.

Facebook with the data selling? Um...stop using Facebook! Unless you advertise on it, then stop complaining.

Facebook with censorship? Sadly true, but I’ll take it over what would happen if our government controlled speech and thought. I get chills thinking about it.

Google...basically same line of thinking as Facebook.

I’ve made my position known, I’m just curious what people’s opinion is of the net benefits to breaking these companies up.

Funny I’ve been listening to Unscripted again and one the sentences by @MJ DeMarco I heard today seems to apply to what Warren is doing:
“Feeding us a bullshit story by a bunch of bullshitters whose only goal is to keep us knee deep in bullshit”
 

biophase

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
474%
Jul 25, 2007
9,121
43,261
Scottsdale, AZ
From the top two hits on Google (irony intended):

Of course, they are dominant because they provide massive value, so no complaints about that. However, that dominance gives them huge leverage, literally over the world's perception of reality. I think that should give anyone pause, even if you think you and Google have aligned interests.

I don't think she is talking about breaking up Google as a search engine and Facebook as a social media platform.

Nobody has to use Google to search, they can choose to use yahoo. Heck, to use google if you use IE or Firefox or Safari, you literally have to go in and change your default search engine to them to start using them. How is that a monopoly if the user has to choose them over 4 other search engines to get to them?

Regarding Facebook, a social media platform won't work if it's broken up. If half of your friends are on FB and the other half on Myspace, how does that work? Eventually everybody will either be on both or choose one.

She is talking about Google search combined with Google Ads, or Facebook combined with IG, not the core businesses themselves grabbing the market share alone.

BTW, you want to know what a real monopoly is? Having only ONE cable internet provider like Cox in your area. If you don't like Cox, you can get DSL, but DSL is much slower. So it's not like you have an alternative to get the SAME level of service.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

lowtek

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
332%
Oct 3, 2015
2,164
7,186
42
Phoenix, AZ
Those of you calling for breaking up big tech need to ask yourselves a few fundamental questions:

1) How did these firms become so large and dominant in the first place? Was it through a superior product, or was it through regulatory capture?

2) Are the mechanisms that enabled these large firms to dominate the market going to go away when we split them up?

3) Are the "smaller" firms not going to attempt to do the same thing as the parent firm did, only this time from multiple angles and increased velocity due to reduced bureaucratic overhead?

The answers to these questions are obvious, to me. These firms exist at this scale due to big daddy government creating moats around them. They will exploit the very same mechanisms that gave rise to their dominant position as smaller firms, and they will do so with much more disastrous consequences.

If you don't believe me, spend a little bit educating yourselves on how the break up of the telecoms in the 20th century went. Spoiler alert, it ended up with the States having one of the worst internet infrastructures in the developed world, coupled with an oligopoly of abusive telecom firms.
 

biophase

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
474%
Jul 25, 2007
9,121
43,261
Scottsdale, AZ
Please don't break up FB.
I read that FB is planning to consolidate WhatsApp, IG and FB into one seamless platform recently, which means it will make it easier to run ads to target consumers since everything will be less fragmented.

FB ads are like a godsend tool to reach consumers.

Please do everything in your power to break up Amazon. Nowadays e-commerce = Amazon, and I dislike that.

So what you want is all about what will benefit you. LOL
 

DragoonDB

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
244%
Oct 17, 2018
41
100
This entire thread makes me think of Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" book and TV series. As an aside, I think the 10-part TV series touches on a number of topics being discussed here.

The discussion leads to two, and only two, camps from my perspective - laissez faire and government involvement. There cannot be an in between, as government involvement in one area cedes government involvement in all areas. In for a penny, in for a pound - and you take all the associated good and bad.

If you allow the gun of the government to be pointed in any direction (regardless of it being an area you agree/disagree), you have to presume it will be pointed at you inevitably. On something that hits many of us frequently - do you endorse the amount you pay in taxes, where those dollars are going and the causes being championed?

When is too big too big? When are revenues too much? When are employees too many? Who determines when you fall into the cross hairs?

I reject the notion that a person or central group can better decide my best interests than me. I would go further and safely guess that's how all of us feel; if you discard the ability of others to make their own choices, know there are people looking at you the same way.

I know this post may sound idealistic, but I cannot see the existence of any middle ground. And if you call in the government to champion your cause, you had best be prepared to have it called in against you.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

NC Bidniss

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
214%
Mar 5, 2019
64
137
I don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, breaking up large tech companies will give smaller startups more of a chance to compete, will help to prevent some of the "questionable" practices of tech companies, and will likely force more competitive pricing for tech services. However, I also think the government forcing large companies to break up opens a can of worms. When the government tries to "correct" the free market, they often end up screwing things up.

It's a pretty complicated issue, and the intricacies are far above my head. However, Warren's understanding of those intricacies is likely not much above my own. She's a politician, and politicians love to make a common enemy out of anybody they can find to garner votes. The entire issue may end up the same as the whole "$15 minimum wage" nonsense. Great in theory, horrific in practice.
 

MJ DeMarco

I followed the science; all I found was money.
Staff member
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
445%
Jul 23, 2007
38,079
169,497
Utah
Well in a thread that is mostly political, I'm pleasantly surprised at how it has evolved.

A variety of divergent opinions and not a lot of mud being thrown.

Thanks everyone for being civil.

Carry on...
 

Maxboost

Silver Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
214%
Apr 4, 2016
403
861
44
So you are the authority on what common sense and reality are?

No, I just don't believe that your idea of NO REGULATIONS are needed and "the free market" will correct itself is similar to the Utopia that socialist imagine in their head where everyone is equal.

My earlier point was regulation should ONLY be implemented when there is market failure or harm to the public. There is market failure in this case.

Businesses will continue to do unethical practices until it is unprofitable to do so, such as unsafe working conditions, child labor, illegal immigration workers, water pollution, air pollution, overfishing, Mcdonalds overheating their coffee, etc.

Think about this as an example... You have Joes Shoe Shop, and Joe is an outspoken racist. Uses it in his marketing... Whatever... Without need for intervention, he is going to lose customers because he is an a**hole. Almost every grievance in this thread about these companies can be compared to racist Joe. If enough people get pissed off... Alternatives will become viable.

You accuse me of a strawman LOL.

What exactly has "FAILED"?

Exchange of ideas, political bias, fake news, censorship, loss of private information, and de-personing of Alex Jones.


We assumed that these companies would not be biased and act in the best interest of society but now the evidence is showing they have ulterior motives to shape society (you never watched the tim poole/twitter interview) . But hey "muh free markets..." That is why I am no longer libertarian.

There are no monopolies here.

Disengenious.

Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted.

Gab was removed from the App store and Google store and could have been a competitor to twitter as a response to the suppression of free speech.

Read more: Which of your friends needs to learn this term?

The entire situation was largely considered a government failure.

Says who? No one can answer this question unless you can create a time machine and observe an alternate reality. Absurd statement to make.

We do have the majority of oil production under control of a cartel today, and you are evidently OK with it, and it isn't Rockefeller's.

Never made that claim, OPEC was not responsible for breaking up standard Oil, nor are the USA a part of OPEC. You never watched the video. Also I am against cartels like OPEC as well so what is your point?
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Kak

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Jan 23, 2011
9,678
47,666
34
Texas
No, I just don't believe that your idea of NO REGULATIONS are needed and "the free market" will correct itself is similar to the Utopia that socialist imagine in their head where everyone is equal.

My earlier point was regulation should ONLY be implemented when there is market failure or harm to the public. There is market failure in this case.

Businesses will continue to do unethical practices until it is unprofitable to do so, such as unsafe working conditions, child labor, illegal immigration workers, water pollution, air pollution, overfishing, Mcdonalds overheating their coffee, etc.



You accuse me of a strawman LOL.



Exchange of ideas, political bias, fake news, censorship, loss of private information, and de-personing of Alex Jones.


We assumed that these companies would not be biased and act in the best interest of society but now the evidence is showing they have ulterior motives to shape society (you never watched the tim poole/twitter interview) . But hey "muh free markets..." That is why I am no longer libertarian.



Disengenious.

Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted.

Gab was removed from the App store and Google store and could have been a competitor to twitter as a response to the suppression of free speech.

Read more: Which of your friends needs to learn this term?



Says who? No one can answer this question unless you can create a time machine and observe an alternate reality. Absurd statement to make.



Never made that claim, OPEC was not responsible for breaking up standard Oil, nor are the USA a part of OPEC. You never watched the video. Also I am against cartels like OPEC as well so what is your point?

I flat out said you can't have no regulation. Contract law, for example is very important!

Racist Joe was an example of people being dissatisfied with a company and ending their business relationship with him because of it. It had nothing to do with you, but good job taking it personally. You're name isn't Joe is it? Because I can understand how that might have confused someone like yourself.

You still claim market failure even though you probably go home to voluntarily use Amazon and Google.

I never said OPEC broke up standard oil.

Where are you getting this shit? You're not even debatable.

Sucky companies exist... That doesnt mean we vote for their demise. Just stop giving them your business. Using the government as a weapon to rob someone doesnt make robbery ok.
 
Last edited:

MTEE1985

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
425%
Jun 12, 2018
685
2,914
Arizona
Against my better judgement here goes.

Exchange of ideas, political bias, fake news, censorship, loss of private information, and de-personing of Alex Jones.

Maybe we need to take a step back and start this thread over?

You are correct on these points and nobody is disputing it, simply saying alternatives exist. Nobody is getting the above items forced down their throats, they are choosing to use Facebook, Google etc and shame on them if they can’t think for themselves.

Gab was removed from the App store and Google store and could have been a competitor to twitter as a response to the suppression of free speech.

Poor example. While I am as pro free speech as anybody, Gab doesn’t deserve to be listed on either. If I started posting racist, homophobic etc. content here
MJ would kick me the F*ck out. Doesn’t make him anti-free speech. It makes him human. And violates the terms of HIS forum which I CHOOSE to participate in under his rules.

And no. High barrier to entry does not equal monopoly, nobody is stopping the next google or Facebook or Amazon from existing if somebody wants to bark up that tree bad enough.
 

NovaAria

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Jul 18, 2018
118
338
If I started posting racist, homophobic etc. content here
MJ would kick me the F*ck out. Doesn’t make him anti-free speech. It makes him human. And violates the terms of HIS forum which I CHOOSE to participate in under his rules.

But what if MJ's forum is the biggest forum on the net where 99% of the population reads the news and follows the state of the world? What if you went to the second biggest platform, my website, and I happened to be friends with MJ and we collude to make sure that your voice gets silenced? Oh you're free to talk about whatever you want on ponies-with-hats-on.com (I hope this doesnt lead anywhere), but no one who matters will get to hear you.
Now what if this isn't about racist or homophobic speech, but about opinions that might not align with our plans for the upcoming election?

I think everyone in this thread agrees that the government intervening will only complicate things further. But something must still be done.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

biophase

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
474%
Jul 25, 2007
9,121
43,261
Scottsdale, AZ
But what if MJ's forum is the biggest forum on the net where 99% of the population reads the news and follows the state of the world? What if you went to the second biggest platform, my website, and I happened to be friends with MJ and we collude to make sure that your voice gets silenced? Oh you're free to talk about whatever you want on ponies-with-hats-on.com (I hope this doesnt lead anywhere), but no one who matters will get to hear you.
Now what if this isn't about racist or homophobic speech, but about opinions that might not align with our plans for the upcoming election?

I think everyone in this thread agrees that the government intervening will only complicate things further. But something must still be done.

So at what point does MJ not have the right to exclude something he doesn’t agree with on his own forum? Is it only when it crosses 90% of the population? 95%?
 

Maxboost

Silver Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
214%
Apr 4, 2016
403
861
44
I flat out said you can't have no regulation. Contract law, for example is very important!

Racist Joe was an example of people being dissatisfied with a company and ending their business relationship with him because of it. It had nothing to do with you, but good job taking it personally. You're name isn't Joe is it? Because I can understand how that might have confused someone like yourself.

You still claim market failure even though you probably go home to voluntarily use Amazon and Google.

I never said OPEC broke up standard oil.

Where are you getting this shit? You're not even debatable.

Sucky companies exist... That doesnt mean we vote for their demise. Just stop giving them your business. Using the government as a weapon to rob someone doesnt make robbery ok.

Good job having a rational discussion and debating in a civilized manner.

I provided rebuttals to your arguments on why these big tech companies need to be regulated but you proved my point that your ideology has gotten the better of your common sense judgement (much like a socialist). Slinging Ad hominem fallacies and not addressing my rebuttals shows that you have not thought about the issue deeply and took it personally.

As I said earlier, regulation is ONLY necessary until the big boys prove they can't play fairly and will not harm the public. Big tech companies proved they can't...therefore it's time for regulation...As much as I dislike Elizabeth Warren...she is RIGHT...
 

Post New Topic

Please SEARCH before posting.
Please select the BEST category.

Post new topic

Guest post submissions offered HERE.

Latest Posts

New Topics

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top