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

MTEE1985

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

Now that is a quality post and the proper way to have a constructive debate. Thank you for a breath of fresh air.

I would say, let the 99% get their news there. I would rather be in the 1%.

Without getting too political, in regards to election opinions that goes both ways depending on who you ask. Left thinks right bought the election via social media and Russia. Right thinks left suppressed their speech and ads. I think it’s all nonsense crying by a bunch of spoiled entitled brats on both sides to see who can yell “that’s not fair” the loudest.

So while I understand your point, I don’t think it gives the general public’s ability to think enough credit.

To the topic at hand of the break up of the companies...as you alluded to, government intervention would likely make the problem 10x worse because the 99% getting their news from that source would get whatever the government wants them to get. Technically could they do something that would in fact be beneficial? Sure. But they can’t help themselves and would manage to screw it up much worse than it is now. (In my humble opinion)

And if something must be done, the government is the only way at this point because we live in a free market economy where as much as people bitch and moan about Facebook, Google, Amazon they aren’t about to give them up either.

It’s like the story of the dog laying on the nail, it might hurt, but not bad enough.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Choate

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
243%
Mar 25, 2014
640
1,557
Boston
Rationally speaking, this is just way over my head to actually have a take on it whether it is beneficial in a business sense. This is an issue that extends into every facet of life, from global economics to small families in rural Kansas.

Its easy to feel one way or another on it based on a few takes or what points most resonate with personal feelings and what not. I'll be watching with a close eye and interest, to see how it plays out, but don't feel strongly one way or another. Both sides have presented decent points from what I've read, but feel like I would need a PhD in Economics and 20 years on top of that to actually come to a conclusion... and then you have people like that on both sides of the aisle that conflict because of different schools of thought.

I read this Economist article today dating back to 1999 regarding the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911. I think its relevant, so it is something I can contribute here. Apparently, politics rather than economics played a larger role in the breakup of the company. Some of it was tied into the re-election of Theodore Roosevelt. Are we witnessing another presidential campaign leveraging antitrust suits? It leaves you pondering this, among other questions.

Standard ogre
 

Maxboost

Silver Contributor
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
214%
Apr 4, 2016
403
861
44
they are choosing to use Facebook, Google etc and shame on them if they can’t think for themselves.

This isn't about if you can use their services, it's "are they behaving in an ETHICAL manner that is conducive to a free and open society that fosters different ideas and a competitive environment.

Short answer: No, these big tech companies are not acting in an ethical manner, therefore bring on the regulators.

hile I am as pro free speech as anybody, Gab doesn’t deserve to be listed on either.

You are proving my point for regulation.
 

MTEE1985

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
425%
Jun 12, 2018
685
2,914
Arizona
This isn't about if you can use their services, it's "are they behaving in an ETHICAL manner that is conducive to a free and open society that fosters different ideas and a competitive environment.

Short answer: No, these big tech companies are not acting in an ethical manner, therefore bring on the regulators.

I agree 100% that the ethics are sketchy. The question then becomes will our government regulate in a way that fosters different ideas and a competitive environment? In theory they could. In practice, not a chance in hell so my preference is letting the market regulate.

You are proving my point for regulation.

We are all for regulation, but there are different kinds, the debate in the thread seems to be who can regulate more effectively between the market/consumers and the government. My vote again is not the government.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

Bekit

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Aug 13, 2018
1,135
5,601
My personal opinion:

Google IS a government.

Facebook IS a government. Zuck is a king over a country. And the population is a lot larger than the population of the US.

A lot of us hold dual citizenship in a lot of these "countries."

And we're operating under the illusion that these are just "companies."

No they're not. Look at how YouTube has completely nullified copyright law. The rules that apply are YouTube's rules, not the laws of the land. Who calls the shots? YouTube.

  • So when you're on Facebook, you're subject to Facebook's laws.
  • When you're on Google, you're subject to Google's laws.
  • When you're on Twitter, you're subject to Twitter's laws. "There's a dramatic difference between what Twitter thinks is OK and what the US Government thinks is OK." —Tim Pool

It's my personal opinion that if the US Government were to try to intervene, Google and/or Facebook would just put their hands on their hips and say, "Make me."

Think about who has leverage over who.

Does the US Government have leverage over Google? Or would Google just establish their headquarters in a different country and continue to operate exactly as they please?

Would the US Government risk making any decision that would provoke Google to yank their services from Americans? Think about what that would do to our economy. Life as we know it would be gone.

But what's the alternative? Let's say Elizabeth Warren's plan actually gets carried out. Say Google and facebook get broken up into a bunch of little pieces where they're too weak to recover.

Baidu and Yandex are going to zoom into that void, and all the power of controlling that enormous volume of user data is going to shift to non-American versions of those same services.

I don't really see any upside in any of these scenarios.

1) We are subject to the judgment calls of the handful of executives at Google and Facebook etc. They now rule our lives instead of elected officials.
2) We hand the control over to the notoriously inept US Government.
3) We hand the control over to a foreign government.

Right now, we're in a sort of truce. No one has revealed their cards. Google and Facebook haven't overtly rebelled against the government. But already, I think they're at a point where they could.

And no one wants to tip their hand just yet.
 
Last edited:

scottmsul

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
302%
Apr 29, 2017
130
392
32
Boulder, CO
Google IS a government.

Facebook IS a government. Zuck is a king over a country. And the population is a lot larger than the population of the US.

Except there's one big difference between corporations and the government. You don't have to interact with a corporation. All transactions are voluntary. That goes out the window once government is involved.

Don't like how Facebook controls your news feed? Stop using Facebook.

Don't like how Youtube removes or demonetizes certain videos? Stop using Youtube.

Don't like social security? Too bad! You're paying into it, whether you want to or not.
 

Bekit

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
493%
Aug 13, 2018
1,135
5,601
Except there's one big difference between corporations and the government. You don't have to interact with a corporation. All transactions are voluntary. That goes out the window once government is involved.

Don't like how Facebook controls your news feed? Stop using Facebook.

Don't like how Youtube removes or demonetizes certain videos? Stop using Youtube.

Don't like social security? Too bad! You're paying into it, whether you want to or not.
Fair point. To an extent.

I would argue, though, that it's not that simple to just "opt out."

I had deleted my facebook account, but in order to open a business page, you have to have a personal page. So I opened one back up. Not that I use it. But if I want to play the game of facebook ads, that's the price you have to pay.

Imagine the ramifications of not using google. Ever. That means no Android devices, no Chrome, no Google search, no gmail, no google drive, no google docs.

You're severely hampered from doing business if you don't have a way to access all these things.

It's kind of like saying, "Don't like social security? Fine, move to a different country. Oh, there's no other alternative country to move to? Drop off the grid and go back to 3rd-world living conditions."

Technically you CAN - but it looks to me like we are just about as beholden to Facebook and Google as we are to the government.
 
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
D

Deleted50669

Guest
Her argument is...(paraphrasing)

Competition suffers b/c of these tech giants. They eat up all of the data, by buying up all of the small players. You shouldn't be allowed to own both a platform and a business that competes on that platform.

Except there are more people with their own businesses now than ever. These platforms allowed the whole entrepreneurship craze to flourish. Many people, including myself, have Google, FB, LinkedIn, YouTube etc, to thank for their success.

View attachment 23994
View attachment 23995


HOWEVER...her rhetoric aside...

Where do we draw the line between private companies, and conglomerates so large they influence democracies by selectively propagating their own ideologies?



I remember a time when you could search a topic, and you'd get 10 completely different ideas. Some contrasting, some reinforcing your biases. Others from across the globe.

Then in Jan 2012, Google forever changed the internet. With other platforms following suit.

"Search plus your world" as it is called. Catering to what you care about. What your immediate friends, family and local community think.

Creating what we now call echo chambers.

Within these echo chambers live the people who moderate the platforms. Pushing their own ideas onto the rest of the population.

Have you ever searched for a topic and the top 5 results were similar? Some even identical?

Or the YouTube search, populating the results with 99% mainstream news outlets? Search for Elizabeth Warren.

While it's nice to think that all companies are predictably rational. Focusing on increasing that bottom line. There are others on the inside, with secondary motives and agendas.
I'm literally building my app with the intent to sell it to a larger tech company lol
 

MHP368

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
161%
Aug 17, 2016
794
1,277
37
Sahuarita AZ
Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren (Pocahontas if you're a fan of Trump) wants to break up big tech.

I don't like this politician much less her political orientation (she's a typical "pay your fair share nutjob") but I have to say, I like the idea.

Elizabeth Warren Imagines Big Tech After the Breakup

Incidentally, she posted an ad on Facebook advocating the breakup of Facebook and Facebook promptly removed (censored) the ad, hence, proving her point. FB only later put it back. Did I say recently how much I hate Facebook?

What are your thoughts to the break up idea?

(Please try and keep politics out of it.)

Well firstly i'm glad someones at least framing a plan instead of just spewing polemic.

The amazon idea made some sense , no amazom branded products , they still own the marketplace they created and get a cut for every sale. Amazon still makes money and 10,000 private label / manufacturing niches pop up.

The idea for google was whack , how do you seperate the ad money from the search function? Why wouldnt alphabet just close google?

The facebook angle also doesnt shake out , facebook is failing right now and zuckerbergs proposal is to make it more like snapchat or whatsapp , less "heres a post for everyone" and more private chat. Again not sensible , facebook would just shutter , the markets already forcing its hand.

Still , these are initial proposals and I like the flavor.

The full article for anyone curious

Here’s how we can break up Big Tech
 
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
Another dumb question. Her stance for this break up is that she wants to encourage competition. If that’s the case why does she take the exact opposite stance for healthcare and advocate for single payer which is literally the definition of a monopoly?

Anybody seeing the hypocrisy here?

Government monopoly = good and just.
Corporate (not actually) monopoly = oh the horror!
 
D

Deleted50669

Guest
Another dumb question. Her stance for this break up is that she wants to encourage competition. If that’s the case why does she take the exact opposite stance for healthcare and advocate for single payer which is literally the definition of a monopoly?

Anybody seeing the hypocrisy here?

Government monopoly = good and just.
Corporate (not actually) monopoly = oh the horror!
You have to think about the personality profile of folks who ascend to power in the government. Generally, professional brown-nosers who abandon all logic in favor of rubbing shoulders with the right people. So when they are confronted with something they don't actually understand they fear it and their reflex is to throw legislation at it. Most of them are string puppets for wall street anyway, but in this case there may actually be a hint of authenticity. Of course, it's uninformed authenticity, but it's authenticity.
 

splok

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
174%
Jul 20, 2012
673
1,172
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%?

The Fair Housing Act and EEOC exemptions make sense right? Under certain, small-scale conditions, the rules don't apply. Where to draw the line is another story of course, but clearly it's possible to do so. There's a bit of room for error between a highly successful forum and a company whose execs overthrow countries while on vacation:

Wael Ghonim Rejoins Egypt's 'Internet Revolution' as Mubarak Clings to Power
In an emotional interview with CNN on Wednesday, Ghonim said he had given his wife power-of-attorney and transferred his bank accounts to her in preparation for a final push to bring down 30-year Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. He said he has taken a leave of absence from Google.

"I have a lot to lose in this life," Ghonim told CNN's Ivan Watson. "I, you know, I work, or, you know, now as I’m on a leave of absence, I work for the best company to work for in the world. I had the best wife, and I have the best, I love my kids, but I’m willing to lose all of that for my dream to happen and no one is gonna go against our desire. No one."

I mean, I'm sure that doesn't spill over into his day-job right? Ok, a little sarcastic, but when this is the kind of person you have running a company, imagining that its actions are driven by rational capitalism and that interests are aligned seems just a bit hopeful.

But forget about Google and Facebook for a second, since as was mentioned earlier, no one "needs" them. But what about Visa and Mastercard? Is it ok for them to ban you and your business because they don't like x? They don't have monopoly on transactions, right? You can always accept cash :)

As it becomes more acceptable to eliminate people who disagree with you, it will happen more often, it will happen more extensively, and it will happen for a broader and broader range of things. Some slopes really are slippery.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
D

Deleted50669

Guest
The Fair Housing Act and EEOC exemptions make sense right? Under certain, small-scale conditions, the rules don't apply. Where to draw the line is another story of course, but clearly it's possible to do so. There's a bit of room for error between a highly successful forum and a company whose execs overthrow countries while on vacation:

Wael Ghonim Rejoins Egypt's 'Internet Revolution' as Mubarak Clings to Power


I mean, I'm sure that doesn't spill over into his day-job right? Ok, a little sarcastic, but when this is the kind of person you have running a company, imagining that its actions are driven by rational capitalism and that interests are aligned seems just a bit hopeful.

But forget about Google and Facebook for a second, since as was mentioned earlier, no one "needs" them. But what about Visa and Mastercard? Is it ok for them to ban you and your business because they don't like x? They don't have monopoly on transactions, right? You can always accept cash :)

As it becomes more acceptable to eliminate people who disagree with you, it will happen more often, it will happen more extensively, and it will happen for a broader and broader range of things. Some slopes really are slippery.
Holy shit, I need to read more.
 

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
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.
I guess that is why we have market mechanisms like takeovers, mergers and acquisitions, and shorting.

You can't do these kinds of things to a government, besides voting them out (in my country, the voting-out process took a few years' worth of general elections to snowball traction lol).

I can see why you might choose corporations as the lesser of two evils.

These giants were once small folks, who enacted disruptive strategies tat overturned the titans before them. Facebook for MySpace, and Google for Yahoo and Alta Vista. This pattern can repeat again.

You have to think about the personality profile of folks who ascend to power in the government. Generally, professional brown-nosers who abandon all logic in favor of rubbing shoulders with the right people. So when they are confronted with something they don't actually understand they fear it and their reflex is to throw legislation at it. Most of them are string puppets for wall street anyway, but in this case there may actually be a hint of authenticity. Of course, it's uninformed authenticity, but it's authenticity.
This reminds me of an interesting thing my finance tutor at university said recently.

He recommended that civil servants and folks who deal with public budgets and government spending, should all go take courses and certifications on public finance, which is a different field than your regular accounting or finance courses.

Unfortunately, most don't even have any prior background close to that.

A great alternative for the politicians who don't have that benefit, is to rope in the relevant advisers.

I remember when Trump first came into power, he got folks like General Mattis and Elon Musk (too bad they resigned from their posts). Good men and women who definitely had more experience and connections outside of government. Even for my country, the PM got together top folks like Robert Quok and Zeti (our past head of our national bank) for a limited-period advisory tenure to settle what the past government screwed up.

One of their best results was stopping some expensive Chinese projects that could have become bad debt traps, but that meant the construction industry would slow down for a bit. Still, there's life after the slowdown, I guess.

I just wonder who's advising Warren on the matter. Somehow I never hear of their team on the other side of the political spectrum.
 
D

Deleted50669

Guest
I guess that is why we have market mechanisms like takeovers, mergers and acquisitions, and shorting.

You can't do these kinds of things to a government, besides voting them out (in my country, the voting-out process took a few years' worth of general elections to snowball traction lol).

I can see why you might choose corporations as the lesser of two evils.

These giants were once small folks, who enacted disruptive strategies tat overturned the titans before them. Facebook for MySpace, and Google for Yahoo and Alta Vista. This pattern can repeat again.


This reminds me of an interesting thing my finance tutor at university said recently.

He recommended that civil servants and folks who deal with public budgets and government spending, should all go take courses and certifications on public finance, which is a different field than your regular accounting or finance courses.

Unfortunately, most don't even have any prior background close to that.

A great alternative for the politicians who don't have that benefit, is to rope in the relevant advisers.

I remember when Trump first came into power, he got folks like General Mattis and Elon Musk (too bad they resigned from their posts). Good men and women who definitely had more experience and connections outside of government. Even for my country, the PM got together top folks like Robert Quok and Zeti (our past head of our national bank) for a limited-period advisory tenure to settle what the past government screwed up.

One of their best results was stopping some expensive Chinese projects that could have become bad debt traps, but that meant the construction industry would slow down for a bit. Still, there's life after the slowdown, I guess.

I just wonder who's advising Warren on the matter. Somehow I never hear of their team on the other side of the political spectrum.
Roping in relevant advisors is the gov's default strategy. If you knew the annual budget for 3rd party contractors you would shit your pants on the spot. When I was a government consultant I used to joke that the taxes coming out of my check paid the next one. It's funny because it's essentially true.
 
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
You have to think about the personality profile of folks who ascend to power in the government. Generally, professional brown-nosers who abandon all logic in favor of rubbing shoulders with the right people. So when they are confronted with something they don't actually understand they fear it and their reflex is to throw legislation at it. Most of them are string puppets for wall street anyway, but in this case there may actually be a hint of authenticity. Of course, it's uninformed authenticity, but it's authenticity.

I agree there is authenticity to her stance. I just wish she would tell the truth that she just doesn’t like these companies because she/the government don’t control them. Then I could have some respect for her.

Under the guise of “competition” I know she’s full of shit because she’s about as anti-competition as they come.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s brilliant because now her base will say “look at us, we’re encouraging competition! We’re capitalists too”

Bulllllshitttt
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted50669

Guest
I agree there is authenticity to her stance. I just wish she would tell the truth that she just doesn’t like these companies because she/the government don’t control them. Then I could have some respect for her.

Under the guise of “competition” I know she’s full of shit because she’s about as anti-competition as they come.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s brilliant because now her base will say “look at us, we’re encouraging competition! We’re capitalists too”

Bulllllshitttt
It all comes back to this
 

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
38,076
169,470
Utah
Spotify is going to war with Apple, filing an antitrust complaint over fears that it is crushing competitors


I don’t think it gives the general public’s ability to think enough credit.

I certainly don't. More and more I'm convinced the general populous is completed brainwashed and incapable of thinking for themselves. Empowered interests set the agenda and the plebs run with it. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind...
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
D

Deleted50669

Guest
Spotify is going to war with Apple, filing an antitrust complaint over fears that it is crushing competitors




I certainly don't. More and more I'm convinced the general populous is completed brainwashed and incapable of thinking for themselves. Empowered interests set the agenda and the plebs run with it. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind...
It's hard to be empathetic to the brainwashed crowd. I used to be a part of it, basically before reading your book and a few others. If people do not seek self-improvement or enlightenment, that's on them ultimately. In today's world you can't swing a dead cat without hitting valuable, free information. There are no excuses.
 

jon.M

Gold Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
343%
Jul 4, 2016
405
1,390
Sweden
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 consider myself one as well, and I've seen some pretty compelling arguments against corporations from individuals who previously were incredibly libertarian and free-market.

For example, some claim that LLCs, corporations and such aren't true capitalist entities, but agents of government. They don't have the same legal liabilities as any individual or sole proprietor.

I'm not educated at all about this topic, but I thought it'd be interesting to throw this out here to see your reaction to it.

1. Are corporations truly capitalistic and free market?
2. Let's assume corporations are agents of government. Why shouldn't the government then have the ability to break them up?

I'm just watching this video by Vox Day on the topic and he brings up Facebook just as I write this. He's kind of a slow speaker, but he's got interesting viewpoints so just put it to 1.5x speed.

 
D

Deleted50669

Guest
I consider myself one as well, and I've seen some pretty compelling arguments against corporations from individuals who previously were incredibly libertarian and free-market.

For example, some claim that LLCs, corporations and such aren't true capitalist entities, but agents of government. They don't have the same legal liabilities as any individual or sole proprietor.

I'm not educated at all about this topic, but I thought it'd be interesting to throw this out here to see your reaction to it.

1. Are corporations truly capitalistic and free market?
2. Let's assume corporations are agents of government. Why shouldn't the government then have the ability to break them up?

I'm just watching this video by Vox Day on the topic and he brings up Facebook just as I write this. He's kind of a slow speaker, but he's got interesting viewpoints so just put it to 1.5x speed.

Isn't the essence of free market the assumption that anyone in under the jurisdiction of the law has equal access to establish an entity? Whether or not the established entity has unwieldy power seems secondary from my point of view, because anyone can start one if they do their homework. People ultimately choose whether or not they participate in the market. Just like in pro sports, most people are spectators, and the few put in the required work to reap the reward.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

100ToOne

Silver Contributor
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
204%
Jul 1, 2018
336
687
How realistic is what she's proposing?
Have you guys read: Confession of Economic Hit-man by John Perkins?
Isn't the strongest weapon in the world right now an economical-based weapon? And the U.S is using it all over the world? Why would they try and decrease the power of Amazon when they are gaining control over local and world markets day by day and controlling what can be sold and who can sell it?

Same goes with social media, normal media, movie industry and U.S companies that own big chunks of foreign markets with their power? Let's not talk about oil/energy companies...I live in the Middle East and I know how the U.S government (the ones who influence it ie. lobbys etc.) stands tall and strong by stepping on our corpses using their corporations to get to it.

Not trying to get politics involved but in my understanding this will never happen. Or if it does it has to do with manipulative policies that will just strengthen the U.S government control worldwide while it shows everyone that change is happening.

The U.S government has so much power over its people and foreign nations that they won't let someone risk their control. It's not conspiracy it's facts known by everyone. Or should be.
 

MTEE1985

Platinum Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
425%
Jun 12, 2018
685
2,914
Arizona
Spotify is going to war with Apple, filing an antitrust complaint over fears that it is crushing competitors




I certainly don't. More and more I'm convinced the general populous is completed brainwashed and incapable of thinking for themselves. Empowered interests set the agenda and the plebs run with it. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind...

That thought was in the context of election opinions and how influential social media and Hollywood try to be. In which case we’d have a single party government and one side (not saying which) would have a 90-10 senate majority and probably 350-85 in the house.

In general though, I completely agree. The public is severely incapable of thinking for themselves, to the point where it’s scary.

Interesting article on Spotify and I’ll be following that case. The buzzwords are all there. Who says competition has to be “fair”? Ethical, yes, but why fair?

My other thought is where would Spotify be without Apple? Are they biting the hand that feeds them?
 

biophase

Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
474%
Jul 25, 2007
9,120
43,260
Scottsdale, AZ

The 30% fee is interesting, that's why you can't buy audible books on the Apple app. They saw in the article that Uber and some other companies do not need to pay the fee, so I can see their point.

But, one has to wonder that when you start a company that uses an App and is sold in the app store, you must know that things aren't going to be fair at some point.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

StrikingViper69

Shredding scales and making sales
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
167%
Dec 3, 2018
1,447
2,410
UK
I think we need to distinguish between equal and fair. If you sign up to the store and agree to the terms, the terms are fair. But they wouldn't be equal.

Just as the terms of your business. The terms are not equal for both parties. But both parties come to arrangement... so they are fair.
 

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
38,076
169,470
Utah
without Apple?

Yes but at some point, an open market becomes a closed market. The corporations are governments upon themselves, saying who and what can do business, and at what price.

hey saw in the article that Uber and some other companies do not need to pay the fee, so I can see their point.

Because Apple (yet) doesn't have an arm competing with Uber. If Apple was in the business of ride sharing, then you bet there would be fees.

I think we all agree that we should be able to deal with competitors as we see fit -- the issue is when one corporation controls an entire market, or most of it. The iOS + App Store fits that mold.

The issue is when these trillion dollar corporations become quasi-governments unto themselves without any recourse or arbitration.

The line between "big government" and "big corporate oligarchs" is so blurred that they're essentially the same thing.

IMO, neither is good for anyone. And when they collude with each other, it's even worse. (Look into how many FB execs have connections to Washington DC.)

Just not sure there is any amicable solution...
 

NovaAria

Bronze Contributor
Read Fastlane!
Speedway Pass
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
286%
Jul 18, 2018
118
338
Isn't the strongest weapon in the world right now an economical-based weapon? And the U.S is using it all over the world? Why would they try and decrease the power of Amazon when they are gaining control over local and world markets day by day and controlling what can be sold and who can sell it?

Exactly! What would happen if Amazon stopped being a US based weapon, and became a chinese one? This is in fact the object of the interview someone linked in the thread earlier, about Twitter and Russia's involvement in the elections.
These are times where corporations are becoming more and more immaterial. Headquarters in one country and factories in another, while tech support is in a third and the CEO's penthouse is in a fourth. Where does the company's loyalty lie? With profits.
And rest assured. If someone finds a way to monetize misfortune, they will.
 
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
D

Deleted50669

Guest
Yes but at some point, an open market becomes a closed market. The corporations are governments upon themselves, saying who and what can do business, and at what price.



Because Apple (yet) doesn't have an arm competing with Uber. If Apple was in the business of ride sharing, then you bet there would be fees.

I think we all agree that we should be able to deal with competitors as we see fit -- the issue is when one corporation controls an entire market, or most of it. The iOS + App Store fits that mold.

The issue is when these trillion dollar corporations become quasi-governments unto themselves without any recourse or arbitration.

The line between "big government" and "big corporate oligarchs" is so blurred that they're essentially the same thing.

IMO, neither is good for anyone. And when they collude with each other, it's even worse. (Look into how many FB execs have connections to Washington DC.)

Just not sure there is any amicable solution...
Apple may not have a ride sharing solution entered in the market yet, but I know two people there working on machine learning algorithms to automate object detection in chassis.
 

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