Elizabeth Warren: Break up Big Tech

[G-Man]

She's pre-texting.

The way legislation starts out, or how it's stated that it will be implemented is almost never what the final version looks like. My gut feeling is that this is pre-text to regulate speech on social media or in marketplaces. In Elizabeth Warren's world, calling someone a "pay your fair share nutjob" is probably hate speech. If you put that in a book, she'd probably have it yanked from the marketplace she considers a utility. The internet will become public school.

I agree that big tech is a threat to democracy, but ending the threat to democracy isn't the real goal to someone like Warren. Controlling democracy under the guise of protecting it is probably what's really going on.

I could be wrong. Just my gut feeling.

 

[Kak]

One thing I don't think anyone has considered... These companies all operate all over the world. Not just in the USA. Each of them literally balance trade in our favor.

So "Murica" gets to decide what is best for the entire world? (Yeah, I guess Murica does that all the time, maybe we should stop.)

Google literally provide so unbelievably much value to our lives in exchange for so little money. They are amazing to me and get high praise in my book. Should they be punished for excellence?

Amazon... I have been very critical of the terms some are willing to accept, but every single transaction has been and continues to be voluntary. I don't see the problem here either.

Facebook? I don't like it and because of that I chose not to have one. I don't want to hand it over to Pocahontas either.

As @ExaltedLife said so fittingly... What gives her the right?

 

[Kak]

Way way way too much government for me. Left alone, our issues with all of these companies will work themselves out. Unless our problem is not enough government.

This sounds a like some "greater good" nonsense from Atlas Shrugged. If I owned one of these giants I would blow it to bits, burn every building and fire every employee before I let the government take it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

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.)

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[G-Man]

What is the proof that capitalism hurts large groups of average people? The reality is quite the contrary.

Quoting my younger self:

There is zero connection between wealth redistribution and the advancement of society. (Which is this middleground you are talking about.)

Very few would disagree that we have a pretty great standard of living in the USA... Possibly the best of the larger countries in the world. That said, my is this... What drove our country to this point? No one in the US needs to go hungry, very very few do. No one in the US works in working conditions like that of just 50 years ago. No one in the US is forced to work long hours. Very few that are truly willing to work are unemployed.

The WORKING CLASS are buying big beautiful homes with very little sacrifice, or risk. They are driving luxurious automobiles and flying on airplanes to go on nice vacations every year. They are playing golf. They are healthier and happier than ever before.

Ask a working class guy from the 1950s what his lifestyle looked like... It was quite different.

Did government do this? HELL No!

The reason for this constant improvement... FREE MARKET Capitalism... Government does not advance society. Evil, greedy, capitalist pigs advance society.

Capitalism begot machinery that reduced human workload.

Capitalism harnessed the energy stored in fuels to further reduce workload.

Capitalism begot railways that spread economies far and wide.

Capitalism begot cars that made capitalist exchange even more efficient within city centers.

Capitalism made air travel affordable for the masses.

Capitalism begot technology that turned us into an information sector economy.

Capitalism creates the value that employs people. Even government indirectly.

Capitalism is virtuous. Win-win, trade-up value exchanges create opportunity for everyone.

All along the way there was a producer that made a killing off of each and every one of these advancements. They deserve it.

What has the government done? Bombs people, jails citizens, blows resources on frivolous endeavors, death marches our soldiers into battle, kills (mostly minority) unborn babies, regulates and creates expensive compliance issues, makes trying to “capitalism” the world forward a living hell and they charge us 40-60 percent of everything we earn for the privilege.

All of this said, the facts are there... The money is much better left with us greedy capitalists. Government is where value goes to die.

So build... build the most audacious pile of money you possibly can. Capitalistically exchange your way to the biggest business you possibly can build. Along the way you will provide means for all of your employees and value to your customers and shareholders. The world is better for your efforts...

I think I've related this story on the forum before, but this thread seems like a good place to re-iterate. It is the story of one of the first stark moments that made me realize that I didn't belong in the non-profit world anymore.

I was in a meeting where they were talking about "social justice" as it pertains to ethnic minorities. Forget that social justice is tautological. All justice is social. If the world consisted of 1 guy alone on a desert island, there would be no concept of justice, but I digress.

Me the lonely guy in a room of PhD's, and the subject got onto how capitalism doesn't work, and cannot solve complex problems. So, here we are, people from at least 7 different countries, meeting in a single location. We took commercial jets manufactured in the USA, flown with fuel drilled in the middle east, met in a room in a country none of us lived in, in a pre-set office rented from an owner in Europe. We're sitting there typing on devices designed in California, manufactured in China, and sold by distributors in Europe. The room is kept cool by a device called an air conditioner that none of us knows how to make, and installed by a person that none of us can even communicate with because we don't speak the language. One of our colleagues couldn't make it. He's joining us via teleconference from a signal that literally travels to space and then back to earth.

All of this, and these PhDs are sitting around talking about how capitalism can't solve complex problems. I don't know why, but in that one serendipitous moment, the absurdity all somehow hit me at the same time.

I had one foot out the door after that.

 

[MTEE1985]

Pocahontas if you're a fan of Trump

Maybe we only break up .098% (1/1024) of these companies.

 

[Kak]

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.

So government control of our perceptions is the rational alternative? They already have schools, healthcare, and the media. Look how well that has worked out.

"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."

I'll take Google for my search needs please and thank you. I know the motivation of private industry. The motivation of power hungry politicians? That is an ever changing question mark.

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.

 

[Kak]

The thing that bothers me is that both ways: wild capitalism and communism
are proved to hurt large groups of average people.

What is the proof that capitalism hurts large groups of average people? The reality is quite the contrary.

Quoting my younger self:

There is zero connection between wealth redistribution and the advancement of society. (Which is this middleground you are talking about.)

Very few would disagree that we have a pretty great standard of living in the USA... Possibly the best of the larger countries in the world. That said, my question for you is this... What drove our country to this point? No one in the US needs to go hungry, very very few do. No one in the US works in working conditions like that of just 50 years ago. No one in the US is forced to work long hours. Very few that are truly willing to work are unemployed.

The WORKING CLASS are buying big beautiful homes with very little sacrifice, or risk. They are driving luxurious automobiles and flying on airplanes to go on nice vacations every year. They are playing golf. They are healthier and happier than ever before.

Ask a working class guy from the 1950s what his lifestyle looked like... It was quite different.

Did government do this? HELL No!

The reason for this constant improvement... FREE MARKET Capitalism... Government does not advance society. Evil, greedy, capitalist pigs advance society.

Capitalism begot machinery that reduced human workload.

Capitalism harnessed the energy stored in fuels to further reduce workload.

Capitalism begot railways that spread economies far and wide.

Capitalism begot cars that made capitalist exchange even more efficient within city centers.

Capitalism made air travel affordable for the masses.

Capitalism begot technology that turned us into an information sector economy.

Capitalism creates the value that employs people. Even government indirectly.

Capitalism is virtuous. Win-win, trade-up value exchanges create opportunity for everyone.

All along the way there was a producer that made a killing off of each and every one of these advancements. They deserve it.

What has the government done? Bombs people, jails citizens, blows resources on frivolous endeavors, death marches our soldiers into battle, kills (mostly minority) unborn babies, regulates and creates expensive compliance issues, makes trying to “capitalism” the world forward a living hell and they charge us 40-60 percent of everything we earn for the privilege. For their "help."

All of this said, the facts are there... The money is much better left with us greedy capitalists. Government is where value goes to die.

So build... build the most audacious pile of money you possibly can. Capitalistically exchange your way to the biggest business you possibly can build. Along the way you will provide means for all of your employees and value to your customers and shareholders. The world is better for your efforts...

Uncle Sam is dead weight.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

The way legislation starts out, or how it's stated that it will be implemented is almost never what the final version looks like. My gut feeling is that this is pre-text to regulate speech on social media or in marketplaces. In Elizabeth Warren's world, calling someone a "pay your fair share nutjob" is probably hate speech. If you put that in a book, she'd probably have it yanked from the marketplace she considers a utility. The internet will become public school.

Very true. Kinda like the "affordable care act" which turned my health insurance payment into a mortgage payment for a $900,000 house I didn't own.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[biophase]

I'm pretty sure Amazon and Google have what's called a monopoly and last I checked those were illegal

Well there is Yahoo, MSN, etc...

Not to mention the thousands of other ecommerce stores out there...

 

[MJ DeMarco]

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...

 

[Bekit]

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.

 

[MTEE1985]

I personally view it as a populist opinion for her to try and steal votes from anti-corporation grandfather Bernie.

Her basic view is that these companies need to be broken up because they are “too big”. Which should not be a form of punishment. Just like the Amazon monopoly thread we had going here...I just don’t see this happening as they don’t fit the definition of monopolies.

She says her “administration would make big, structural changes to the tech sector” too much government involvement for my taste.

 

[MTEE1985]

How much does Amazon account for in the retail space?

As of June 2018: 49% of ecommerce and only 5% of all retail.
Amazon’s share of the US e-commerce market is now 49%, or 5% of all retail spend
Again, as you said @GPM , not much in the grand scheme AND to address below

I'm pretty sure Amazon and Google have what's called a monopoly and last I checked those were illegal

Monopoly is when you’re literally the only game in town. It is not a monopoly to have a majority of market share. The Antitrust folks in our government (if doing their job correctly) are looking out for who is using a lack of competitors to take advantage of consumers via high prices and poor service. Think a telecom company that is literally the only option in a rural town so treats people like garbage and charges an arm and a leg, now that shit is annoying.

These major players all do the opposite. Amazon is big because of the lowest prices and being the most convenient. Facebook is free until you choose to make it not free by utilizing their services to try and benefit yourself. Same with Google.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Roli]

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.

If someone posted an ad on here for their business forum you too might take it down, and nobody would blame you. I'm surprised Facebook put it back up, I wouldn't have.

If I owned one of these giants I would blow it to bits, burn every building and fire every employee before I let the government take it.

Same.

The reason why I think it is a good idea because these powerful companies have powerful platforms that have the power to influence elections and public opinion

This is nothing new, I was born in the 70s so remember when the only place you could get news from were newspapers and TV companies all owned by about six people. If that isn't an example of political influence and corrupting power, I don't know what is.

I'm pretty sure Amazon and Google have what's called a monopoly and last I checked those were illegal

Nope, a monopoly is a situation whereby nobody is allowed a piece of the pie, nothing is stopping anyone creating their own Amazon or Google.

Google literally provide so unbelievably much value to our lives in exchange for so little money. They are amazing to me and get high praise in my book. Should they be punished for excellence?

Agreed, punishing success seems anti-American (this coming from a Brit).

Amazon only accounted for 44% of e-commerce retail last year.

Lol! Only!

Facebook is free until you choose to make it not free by utilizing their services to try and benefit yourself. Same with Google.

Not so, you pay with your time and metrics, you are their product, that isn't free.

-

For me the whole debacle is strange, it's like the death of the American dream, come here make it big from nothing, but not too big mind or we'll demonise you and steal your profits.

Amazon started from a garage and had people openly mocking it for years, Google started in similar circumstances. Bezos and Page weren't given help from government schills, they simply had great ideas and executed them and in the case of Bezos, simply refused to give up.

I say leave them alone.

 

[Kak]

Extreme capitalism is what Standard Oil did in early days - one one coast where the competition still existed the gallon of gas was at $1. On the other coast where there were none of competitors, gallon of gas was about $7 or $11, at a same cost of production.

What was so wrong with Rockefeller? Why was he so bad? Because "people" say he was?

Looking at him from another angle, he almost single handedly put light in the homes of every American and later provided the economy with fuel for their cars. None of which they would have otherwise been able to get at that particular point in time.

The option was fuel or no fuel. Buy or dont buy. Thankfully a lot of people had the option to buy when many didn't.

The gasoline thing is inacurate because he started with lamp oil, gasoline was a byproduct of Kerosene production and didn't enter the picture until the car was invented.

For the sake of argument... Let's say your numbers are true... What's wrong with this anyway? First of all, transportation of product was costlier than production back then. So it is realistic that product literally had to be higher priced on the west coast than the east. High prices don't put competitors out of business, low prices do. Higher margins actually create opportunities for new entrants.

For that to even be an endeavor he took on, there must have been a market willing to pay to have the product transported out there, despite the higher pricing. Being the good businessman he was, he figured out what it took to make sense to deliver product there. They got fuel when they would have had nothing. That doesn't sound so bad does it?

Rockefeller also employed massive amounts of people that would have otherwise not been working.

There are two sides to every coin. Don't believe everything you hear. It is popular to demonize every businessman. As long as people have freedom of choice, there is nothing ever wrong with a business making large profits.

How could the government have "fixed" this "problem?" The only answer involves tying a lead weight to economic progress.

You might believe in self-governance of private sector. I don't. 2008 crisis is one of recent examples if you don't want go as far back as to Standard Oil times.

The 2008 crisis was indirectly the fault of government policy designed to provide home loans to people that were not qualified for them.

When they legislate what is considered an acceptable loan and they insure the bank against default by buying the loans, banks will listen and send loans up the pipeline. This made homes more valuable on paper and the cycle repeats until the music stops.

Mortgage backed securities? Well people should have done more research at a time politically in our country when people were regularly buying homes they couldn't afford.

"2008" was not a failure of capitalism. It was capitalism correcting a government created problem after the music stopped.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Maxboost]

It's about time.

Its time we break up everything, we have market failure and these large companies cannot be trusted, especially with all of the fake news and the agenda they are pushing.

Twitter, Google, and Facebook should be on the chopping block and heavily regulated. These 3 companies can literally brainwash the masses and control society.

 

[lowtek]

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.

 

[MTEE1985]

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!

 

[MJ DeMarco]

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.

[wordwarrior]

Lots to unpack in this.

They broke up AT&T in the '80s. It seemed to be the right decision at the time, but the old AT&T has mostly reconstructed itself.

They were going to break up Microsoft in the late 90's. At the time it seemed like a good idea, but the marketplace has changed (Apple's resurgence, Linux dominating the server market, and the rise of smartphones) nullified Microsoft's previous dominance.

On the other hand, Google, Amazon and Facebook wield enormous power and are in many ways vertically integrated. Amazon has a dominant position in distribution, and leverages that power, and the data it gathers, to favour its own products. It also dominates self-publishers but forcing them into a narrow price band, otherwise they lose 70% of their royalties. Google and Facebook similarly leverage their dominant positions to favour other products non-core to their business against disadvantaged competitors.

BTW, she recently added Apple to her list based on the App Store: Apple joins list of Elizabeth Warren's tech breakup targets

It's hard to predict the future. Based on the future, she's either right or wrong:

a) There will be some new internet tech paradigm shift, such as blockchain or the obliteration of the internet advertising business model, that renders those companies' dominance irrelevant, making any breakups unecessary.
b) There is no paradigm shift in the foreseeable future, and these companies continue to dominate, stifling opportunities for internet entrepreneurs.

So I really hope that a) comes to pass.

 

[ExaltedLife]

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's wrong with them doing that?

The thing people forget about 'facebook censoring' is that Facebook owns the platform you post your ideas on. It isn't 'censorship' to refuse to publish the opinions of those who wish to advocate for your destruction. Censorship is when Big Gov outlaws your newspaper, not when your newspaper refuses to publish the article you wrote on how vaccines cause Alzheimers.

 

[GPM]

I've noticed that the government generally messes up everything that they try to put their hands on. Maybe they should just get out of the damn way and let ingenuity thrive.

If they didn't make it so damn difficult to start anything of substance, maybe there would be more innovation and competition out there.

I am not sure what makes "the government" so fantastic that they become an automatic business partner that you have no choice but to fork a massive portion your time and productivity over to.

 

[GPM]

I'm pretty sure Amazon and Google have what's called a monopoly and last I checked those were illegal

How much does Amazon account for in the retail space? A 5 second internet search tells me that in 2017 they accounted for a whopping 4% of retail in USA. 4% does not sound like a monopoly to me.

How much of the video rental space did Blockbuster count for in 1995? I think looking back the government should have broken them up for their monopoly.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[StrikingViper69]

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.

[biophase]

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

 

[Johnny boy]

Big tech will not be broken up by the left because big tech gets leftist politicians elected.

They will “break up” big tech by turning into something that is even more biased and controlling than it is now.

Just watch, you’ll be spoon fed by the news that “big tech is being broken up” and it will be something entirely different that actually happens.

Typical gaslighting.

 

[Deleted50669]

I think it is a great idea but the truth is the Government has a way of turning a good idea into a costly ineffective bureaucratic nightmare.

The reason why I think it is a good idea because these powerful companies have powerful platforms that have the power to influence elections and public opinion (Just to name a few things they influence). Their platforms have given them a monopoly with competitors falling way behind. Their competitors are basically not existent.
Having that power but not being an elected officially undermines what this country is supposed to be about.
The power they currently have is by then being the ultimate decision maker or moderating the content that comes off their platforms. Although they have the ultimate decision on the content that comes off their platforms they are immune to any repercussions they may result from the content. Which does not seem fair in my opinion.

It is a good idea but the Government has a hard time doing anything right. What comes to mind is when the Government tried to break up Standard Oil because of the monopoly they had over the oil industry. On paper, Standard Oil was broken up into 34 companies but, The Rockefeller family who owned Standard Oil still owed the majority of the stock throughout the entire history of the companies. When the Government sued Standard Oil under federal anti-trust laws that just doubled the wealth of the Rockefeller family. This also pushed the company to establish a bigger international presence.
John Rockefeller just appointed close families that he trusted to take over the 34 companies which were referred to as "Baby Standards"
So basically John D Rockefeller still had control over the companies but on paper, it had looked like 34 companies.

So, in essence, the Government just made The Rockefeller family more rich and powerful. The company still acted as a monopoly after the breakup.

As someone who lives in DC and has consulted the gov I can attest that there should be zero faith for the gov to execute - anything - effectively. Our country would disintegrate without contractors holding up the cubicle zombies.

 

[DragoonDB]

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.

[Kak]

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.