Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-find-you,-m'lud? dept.

The Case Against Google: Critics say the search giant is squelching competition before it begins. Should the government step in?

[...] might have been surprised when headlines began appearing last year suggesting that Google and its fellow tech giants were threatening everything from our economy to democracy itself. Lawmakers have accused Google of creating an automated advertising system so vast and subtle that hardly anyone noticed when Russian saboteurs co-opted it in the last election. Critics say Facebook exploits our addictive impulses and silos us in ideological echo chambers. Amazon's reach is blamed for spurring a retail meltdown; Apple's economic impact is so profound it can cause market-wide gyrations. These controversies point to the growing anxiety that a small number of technology companies are now such powerful entities that they can destroy entire industries or social norms with just a few lines of computer code. Those four companies, plus Microsoft, make up America's largest sources of aggregated news, advertising, online shopping, digital entertainment and the tools of business and communication. They're also among the world's most valuable firms, with combined annual revenues of more than half a trillion dollars.

In a rare display of bipartisanship, lawmakers from both political parties have started questioning how these tech giants grew so powerful so fast. Regulators in Missouri, Utah, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere have called for greater scrutiny of Google and others, citing antitrust concerns; some critics have suggested that our courts and legislatures need to go after tech firms in the same way the trustbusters broke up oil and railroad monopolies a century ago. But others say that Google and its cohort are guilty only of delighting customers. If these tech leviathans ever fail to satisfy us, their defenders argue, capitalism will punish them the same way it once brought down Yahoo, AOL and MySpace.

[...] There's a loose coalition of economists and legal theorists who call themselves the New Brandeis Movement (critics call them "antitrust hipsters"), who believe that today's tech giants pose threats as significant as Standard Oil a century ago. "All of the money spent online is going to just a few companies now," says [Gary Reback] (who disdains the New Brandeis label). "They don't need dynamite or Pinkertons to club their competitors anymore. They just need algorithms and data."

Related: Microsoft Relishes its Role as Accuser in Antitrust Suit Against Google
Google Faces Record 3 Billion Euro EU Antitrust Fine: Telegraph
Antitrust Suit Filed Against Google by Gab.Ai
India Fines Google $21.17 Million for Abusing Dominant Position
Google's Crackdown on "Annoying" and "Disruptive" Ads Begins


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:10PM (57 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:10PM (#641982)

    It makes no sense to turn to a violently imposed monopoly and ask it to "protect" us from a voluntarily grown "monopoly".

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:50PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:50PM (#642002) Journal

    Maybe not.

    But I don't mind turning to a constitutionally imposed monopoly and asking it to both protect and regulate (within reason).

    Clue: if you want to live with other people, then there will be laws, to which you are subject. if you don't like the rules of society, you can try another country, or find somewhere (supposedly) beyond the reach of the law, or where there simply are no other law abiding people (Antarctica, Wyoming).

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:06PM (#642020)

      Just sayin'.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @05:42PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @05:42PM (#642480)

      Just sayin'.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 05 2018, @03:31PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @03:31PM (#647991) Journal

        It may not be ideal, but it makes far better sense than the alternative of anarchy.

        Let me point out something. People criticize the Bible because of some of the horrible things that occur in the book of Judges in the Old Testament. A recurring theme throughout that book, and oft' repeated right after each atrocity is: But in those days Israel had no king, and everyone did as he saw fit.

        That "everything did as he saw fit" is the problem. Having a government (but not necessarily a "king") is better. People agreeing to certain laws for everyone's mutual safety. It's the "I live by my own rules" people that tempt me to think I should consider owning a firearm. Law abiding people are not the ones I fear.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:14PM (51 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:14PM (#642025)

    There's nothing "violently imposed," unless you're still fighting the Civil War [wikipedia.org].

    Is that it, Johnny Reb [wikipedia.org]?

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:17PM (33 children)

      by mhajicek (51) on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:17PM (#642026)

      All laws are violently imposed. That's not to say anarchy would be any less violent.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:27PM (28 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:27PM (#642034) Homepage Journal

        All laws are violently imposed. That's not to say anarchy would be any less violent.

        Really? I haven't seen any shooting, weapons, or threats of violence in the capitol building during votes.

        Nor have I ever seen anyone with a knife to a President's throat while signing bills into law.

        I'd go further to say that I've never seen any of that in municipal or state governments either.

        And since we elected those folks (again, I haven't seen anyone standing next to a voter with a weapon, forcing them to vote a certain way), I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

        Or is your position that there are hidden death rays everywhere, ready to kill anyone that doesn't toe the line? Perhaps your tinfoil hat is a little tight?

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:32PM (5 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:32PM (#642036)

          I think they're referring to intellectual violence in those posts. As in we should all be our own country according to Ayn Rand and the U.S. should be an anarchy or something. Voluntary association, blah blah, rule of law blah blah, personal liberty etc.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:45PM (4 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:45PM (#642046) Homepage Journal

            I think they're referring to intellectual violence in those posts.

            Is didn't realize that the album [wikipedia.org] was so well-known, or so focused on anarcho-capitalism. Well, I guess you learn something new every day. ;)

            More seriously, intellectual violence? Please. That's seems like more of a cop out, than a school of thought -- Something along the lines of "Mommy! Bobby's arguments are better and logically stronger than mine! That makes me sad and mad! Make him stop doing intellectual violence to me!"

            Either you can elucidate your arguments with logic, evidence and quality rhetoric, or you can't. If you can't, it's because your logic, evidence or rhetorical skill is lacking, not that someone else is "doing violence" to you.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 23 2018, @04:59PM (3 children)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday February 23 2018, @04:59PM (#642460)

              Hey, I didn't say I buy their logic. I just try a bit harder to figure out what they're trying to say ;)

              It's true that we're not consulted at birth about what sort of government we personally want to have. You can take the last of the boxes (moving box) to object, I suppose.

              There's the old saw that these Randians who seem to love the idea of anarchy, should try moving to Somalia and see how much they like it then. I'm a middle ground sort of person, in that with *no* regulations, companies will bend us all over, but the government should only impose enough regulation to protect the public interest (prevent dangerous products being sold, that sort of thing). If the feds would just stop giving monopolies to ISPs and such, competition would work out a lot of the problems we have on its own.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @06:40PM (2 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @06:40PM (#642541) Homepage Journal

                Hey, I didn't say I buy their logic. I just try a bit harder to figure out what they're trying to say ;)

                And I didn't mean to imply that you did. If I came across that way, my apologies.

                I was just a little taken aback by the concept of "intellectual violence" as I think I made pretty clear.

                It's true that we're not consulted at birth about what sort of government we personally want to have. You can take the last of the boxes (moving box) to object, I suppose.

                A fair point. However, I'd say we also (as we've seen over the last couple centuries) have the choice to work toward *changing the way our government works* in addition to the choice to leave.

                There's the old saw that these Randians who seem to love the idea of anarchy, should try moving to Somalia and see how much they like it then. I'm a middle ground sort of person, in that with *no* regulations, companies will bend us all over, but the government should only impose enough regulation to protect the public interest (prevent dangerous products being sold, that sort of thing). If the feds would just stop giving monopolies to ISPs and such, competition would work out a lot of the problems we have on its own.

                How much and what kinds of regulation government (at *all* levels) puts into place is, IMHO, a reflection of those who vote to elect representatives to act for them.

                There is a relatively new (more than half a century, but short in terms of the life of our current form of government) tradition of writing laws to be intentionally vague (and this is not a partisan thing either), and leaving the details to "regulatory agencies." This allows elected folks (who we can complain about all we want, but *we* elected them) to take "credit" for passing "laws to "protect us" while being able to decry unpopular stuff by blaming "regulation" by agencies that those same people created with those laws they trumpeted as so wonderful.

                I'm sure we agree on the necessity for certain laws/regulations and disagree on others. That's normal, as we are different people with different ideas about what's appropriate.

                That's what politics is *supposed* to be about. People who disagree making good-faith efforts to work together on things we *can* agree upon for the benefit of us all.

                It's not the idea that I'm right and you're wrong, so unless I get my way, all the way, I'll make sure nothing gets done, or at least do my best to discredit and demonize those who disagree with me.

                As to your point about ISPs, I agree that we need much, much more competition. However, the federal government's involvement in granting monopolies there is pretty much non-existent. It's state and local governments that grant those mono/duo-polies.

                This isn't directed at you, it's just appropriate in the context here, that state and local governments generally have much more power to impact our daily lives than does the federal government. And state/local governments tend to be at least as (often much, much more) corrupt than the federal government.

                It's often much easier to strike out at national government figures, especially on media (radio, TV, "social" media, and even sites like this one), as most people will know who they are.

                However, your city councilman, state assemblyman/senator, mayor/town executive and governor have enormously more power to impact your daily life than does the federal government. Going after Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, Donald Trump or Barack Obama in those fora has much more impact than calling out Greg Wren*, Bill Postmus*, Rod Tam*, Sheldon Silver* or any of the other of the *dozens* of state and local officials who have been *convicted* of bribery, theft and corruption.

                *Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes [wikipedia.org]

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 23 2018, @06:59PM (1 child)

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Friday February 23 2018, @06:59PM (#642554)

                  You didn't come off as confrontational. I've just been spending too much time on Reddit lately, lol.

                  I don't even have the foggiest idea who my local reps are, as I don't follow local news really either. My interaction with the gov't is pretty minimal other than renewing driver's license etc. I did get called for jury duty last summer, which was a very interesting experience (almost ended up on the jury but not quite).

                  Dunno if "Intellectual Violence" is an actual term in those spheres; it was just my layman's word.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday February 23 2018, @12:36AM (20 children)

          by mhajicek (51) on Friday February 23 2018, @12:36AM (#642115)

          If you don't believe laws are violently imposed try violating them. Even the most trivial of laws, if you insist on violating it while law enforcement is attempting to enforce it, they will eventually kill you rather than allow you to continue.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @01:10AM (16 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @01:10AM (#642131) Homepage Journal

            If you don't believe laws are violently imposed try violating them. Even the most trivial of laws, if you insist on violating it while law enforcement is attempting to enforce it, they will eventually kill you rather than allow you to continue.

            Those laws are imposed by the consent of the governed. That means you and me.

            If you believe (and you won't get a lot of argument from me about it) that those who are employed to *enforce* those laws do so in far too violent a fashion, then we need to replace those who manage and oversee those folks, to make sure that they do so much less violently.

            However, that's a governance [wikipedia.org] issue that needs to be addressed, not a complete breakdown of our society. The fact that you and I can rail against it with impunity is ample proof of that.

            I'm sure there are as many opinions as to *how* those changes should be implemented as there are people who express them. Fortunately, we control how governance is managed in the US. Both indirectly (through the representatives we elect) and directly (via ballot initiatives, where those are available).

            Just because you (rightly, IMHO) don't think that people (ourselves included) should be murdered in the streets for allegedly selling cigarettes [wikipedia.org], gunned down for having a broken tail light [npr.org], reporting a potential crime [wikipedia.org], any number of other minor issues or even an attempt to do the right thing, doesn't mean that our laws are imposed at the point of a gun.

            Rather, it shines a light on a dark and frightening aspect of our society and how those who are tasked (by the will of the voters) to uphold the laws enacted by our representatives (elected by those same voters) are given far too much leeway in "protecting" us.

            Does that make sense to you?

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday February 23 2018, @12:24PM (14 children)

              by mhajicek (51) on Friday February 23 2018, @12:24PM (#642332)

              You don't get what I'm saying. No, the laws are not imposed by the concent of the governed.

              Groups of people, elected or otherwise, decide what the laws will be. The governed are seldom consulted. Those laws are then enforced by violence and the threat thereof.

              If, for example, I wanted to sell Beanie Babies on a street corner without a license in a jurisdiction which requires one, members of the government would show up to stop me. At first they may try nicer things like asking me to stop and imposing fines, but if I refused and didn't pay the fines they would escalate to forcibly removing me. If I effectively resisted their force they would kill me.

              That is true of all governments. With the exceptions of corruption and graft, they will kill any subject rather than allow them to continue violating the law.

              --
              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @06:07PM (5 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @06:07PM (#642509) Homepage Journal

                You don't get what I'm saying. No, the laws are not imposed by the concent of the governed.

                Groups of people, elected or otherwise, decide what the laws will be. The governed are seldom consulted. Those laws are then enforced by violence and the threat thereof.

                If you have the political franchise [wikipedia.org] Then you help to decide who makes up those groups of people.

                And if you don't like the decisions they make, you can work to elect different folks, or have legislation considered as a ballot measure [wikipedia.org]

                I'm sorry you're so ignorant of basic civics. Perhaps you should have paid closer attention in school?

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:10AM (4 children)

                  by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:10AM (#642820)

                  You are completely missing the point. I'm not passing judgement on the laws themselves or who decided what they are, only pointing out that every law in every country is imposed by violence and the threat thereof. If you continue to violate a law despite enforcement's attempt to stop you, they will increase their force until you give in or are dead. If this were not true one could avoid taxes, ignore the speed limit, etc. just by being stubborn.

                  --
                  The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:03AM (3 children)

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:03AM (#642848) Homepage Journal

                    No. I'm not missing the point.

                    Words have specific meanings.

                    If you mean to say that "government has the *legal* monopoly on violence." you won't get an argument from me.

                    If you mean to say the words you actually used: "Laws are violently imposed," that means something different, and I'll argue that, at least in the US, that's not true.

                    Does that clarify things for you, as you seem to be a little confused about what *i* mean?

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:06AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:06AM (#642874)

                      That monopoly on violence is used by some people to make impositions on other people.

                      Also, you are begging the question (using circular logic) by calling that monopoly "legal"; you are assuming that which is to be proved; you are assuming that there is consent.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:15AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:15AM (#642876)

                        Hopefully to stop your inane drivel.

                        Can't you go suicide by cop or something?

                    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @06:03AM

                      by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @06:03AM (#642906)

                      Whoosh. Stupid or trolling?

                      --
                      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
              • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday February 23 2018, @09:52PM (7 children)

                by vux984 (5045) on Friday February 23 2018, @09:52PM (#642658)

                Groups of people, elected or otherwise, decide what the laws will be.

                If, for example, I wanted to sell Beanie Babies on a street corner without a license in a jurisdiction which requires one

                The majority of citizens (residents and business orders) Again, local residents and business owners don't want their streets wall to wall with guys sitting on blankets selling their used CDs, art, beanie babies and everything else. These business ventures disrupt traffic, block walkways, prevent access to the other businesses on the street, they often leave all kinds of mess and garbage behind and don't take responsibility for cleaning up, they fight over the best spots, they may agressively accost passersby. They might sell food in unsafe ways. Or chinese toys full of lead. Etc etc etc.

                Despite your complaint that you can't sell beanie babies on the corner, most of society doesn't want that crap all over the city wherever these peddlars would like to be. So they support its regulation, and small numbers of such permits are available for limited purposes, people who get them can be held responsible for what they are doing, it eliminates fights over who its allowed to be where and when. And we designate market spaces specifically for them, open air markets, flea markets, etc.

                At first they may try nicer things like asking me to stop and imposing fines, but if I refused and didn't pay the fines they would escalate to forcibly removing me.

                Uh-huh.

                If I effectively resisted their force they would kill me.

                Highly doubtful, unless by 'effectively resist' you start threatening the lives of the enforcement people; at which point you aren't being killed for your beanie baby business, you are being killed for this other much more violent thing you are doing.

                • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:14AM (6 children)

                  by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:14AM (#642821)

                  Try this: stop paying taxes and attempt to go about your business ignoring all attempts to collect said taxes. Eventually someone will attempt to arrest you. If you refuse to be arrested the force applied to you will increase until you are subdued or dead. The same holds true for every enforced law in every nation, with exceptions for graft and corruption. There is no condition under which the police will say "Oh, you mean you really really don't want to follow the law? That's ok, have a nice day." Unless you have sufficiently bribed them to do so.

                  --
                  The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                  • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:57AM (5 children)

                    by vux984 (5045) on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:57AM (#642885)

                    the force applied to you will increase until you are subdued or dead

                    Again, The only way you end up dead is if you escalate the violence yourself in the process of "resisting".

                    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @06:01AM (4 children)

                      by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @06:01AM (#642903)

                      No. You simply do not comply, and the violence will be escallated apon you. You apparently Know nothing about law enforcement.

                      --
                      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday February 24 2018, @07:25AM (3 children)

                        by vux984 (5045) on Saturday February 24 2018, @07:25AM (#642935)

                        "No. You simply do not comply, and the violence will be escallated apon you."

                        I've seen lots of non-violent protesters hauled off, after refusing to 'comply'. Not shot nor killed.

                        "You apparently Know nothing about law enforcement"

                        You're evidently still alive, so at least you clearly don't have any first hand experience with this theory of years. But now you are going to claim to know people who were shot for not paying their taxes?

                        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:42PM (2 children)

                          by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @03:42PM (#643047)

                          Allowing yourself to be hauled off is a form of compliance.

                          --
                          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
                          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday February 24 2018, @08:20PM (1 child)

                            by vux984 (5045) on Saturday February 24 2018, @08:20PM (#643155)

                            If you were killed for getting violent then you were killed for getting violent. Not some other thing. You can piss and moan all you like that you wouldn't have gotten violent if it wasn't for the other thing, but you chose to get violent. Your argument is as immature as a 5 year justifying biting his sibling because the sibling was bugging him and wouldn't stop.

                            • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday February 25 2018, @06:27AM

                              by mhajicek (51) on Sunday February 25 2018, @06:27AM (#643360)

                              Bullshit.

                              --
                              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:33PM (#642530)

              So why, if you don't sign up for selective service are you sent to jail? Shouldn't I be able to give my consent to be governed by opting in or out? Why is my consent taken for granted based merely on the fact that I was raised to the age of majority in this country? How can an average 18 year old leave, once they find out that they don't wish to consent to the governance of the land they live in?

          • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 23 2018, @04:38AM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday February 23 2018, @04:38AM (#642219) Homepage

            The rich Whites solve the problem by further subdividing neighborhoods into rich and poor.

            Back when I first lived here, The cops would protect the neighborhood. Now, they moved the "boundary of protection" North and ignored those to the Southern boundary. What was once a protected neighborhood became demarcated by Whites and all of those troublesome minorities.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Friday February 23 2018, @07:15PM (1 child)

            by darkfeline (1030) on Friday February 23 2018, @07:15PM (#642568) Homepage

            Laws are finally enforced using violent means, but in the vast majority of cases they are not, unless you define receiving a ticket, fine, arrest or prison sentence as "violent", in which case there's a good chance that you define getting called an asshole as "violent" in which case everything is violence and your argument is moot via reductio ad absurdum.

            We live in an era of unprecedented peace and absence of violence. There has never been a time in human history where so many civil conflicts and crimes/misdemeanors are resolved without violence (e.g., getting a ticket or fine, court resolutions instead of duels).

            --
            Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
            • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:21AM

              by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:21AM (#642827)

              Issuing a ticket is a threat of "Pay up or we will arrest you". And of course if you don't pay up and refuse to be arrested the force used against you will increase until you are subdued or killed. If you are arrested and attempt to escape you will be forcibly subdued or killed. It's all backed up by violence.

              --
              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:07PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:07PM (#642506)

          it's mostly done with the implied threat of violence. obviously.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 23 2018, @05:04AM (3 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday February 23 2018, @05:04AM (#642229) Homepage
        All lawys are violently enforced, perhaps. But that's different.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday February 23 2018, @12:26PM (2 children)

          by mhajicek (51) on Friday February 23 2018, @12:26PM (#642333)

          Laws are imposed by enforcement. If they were not enforced they would be suggestions rather than laws.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday February 23 2018, @03:10PM (1 child)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday February 23 2018, @03:10PM (#642391) Homepage
            Absolute garbage. There are laws which are not enforced, but they have *im**posed* (been placed within) the legal system. Which makes them still laws. Consider all federal laws which states have said they will not enforce (drugs, sanctuary, equal rights, etc.)
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:23AM

              by mhajicek (51) on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:23AM (#642829)

              "Impose" does not mean "put in". Note the word "force".

              im·pose
              imˈpōz/Submit
              verb
              past tense: imposed; past participle: imposed
              1.
              force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place.
              "the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them by others"
              synonyms: foist, force, inflict, press, urge; More
              2.
              take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment.
              "she realized that she had imposed on Miss Hatherby's kindness"
              synonyms: take advantage of, exploit, take liberties with, treat unfairly; bother, trouble, disturb, inconvenience, put out, put to trouble, be a burden on; informalwalk all over
              "it was never my intention to impose on you"

              --
              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Friday February 23 2018, @01:53AM (16 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @01:53AM (#642150) Journal

      Laws are, indeed, violently imposed. Try ignoring them around a police officer who isn't intentionally ignoring you and you will experience the violence.

      The violence doesn't occur during the construction of the law, that's just bribery and corruption. But the imposition of the law is by violence and threat of violence.

      This doesn't mean that there is a better system, but it is an accurate description of the existing system in whatever country you reside...assuming there exists a government in that country.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @02:47AM (13 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @02:47AM (#642174) Homepage Journal

        Laws are, indeed, violently imposed. Try ignoring them around a police officer who isn't intentionally ignoring you and you will experience the violence.

        The violence doesn't occur during the construction of the law, that's just bribery and corruption. But the imposition of the law is by violence and threat of violence.

        This doesn't mean that there is a better system, but it is an accurate description of the existing system in whatever country you reside...assuming there exists a government in that country.

        A relatively reasonable point. However, I disagree in one respect:

        Government (at least not in the US) isn't violently *imposed*. Rather government has the legal monopoly on force. There's an important difference between those two statements.

        That our governance of that monopoly on force isn't well managed is the problem (as I discuss here [soylentnews.org]). That government has such a monopoly is not.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @07:13AM (10 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @07:13AM (#642250)

          Try running a competing postal service.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @09:17AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @09:17AM (#642281)

            Why we gots so many bad boys here on the Soylents? What you gunna do when they come for you?

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:09PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:09PM (#642511)

              uh, put on the gas mask and the bullet proof vest, attach the drum and give them some justice?

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @06:53PM (7 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @06:53PM (#642548) Homepage Journal

            Try running a competing postal service.

            You'll note that the US Postal Service, unlike its many competitors (Fedex, UPS, DHL and dozens of smaller ones) has service requirements not imposed on anyone else [wikipedia.org]:

            The USPS is legally obligated to serve all Americans, regardless of geography, at uniform price and quality.

            That you have to go back more that 170 years to find what you think is a "reasonable" counterexample speaks volumes, IMHO.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @10:50PM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @10:50PM (#642692)

              Your reply neither advances your argument nor dismantles your opponent's argument.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @11:17PM (5 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday February 23 2018, @11:17PM (#642716) Homepage Journal

                Your reply neither advances your argument nor dismantles your opponent's argument.

                That you think I consider the other poster an "opponent" is interesting. I don't. We're just people commenting in a discussion.

                I don't see discussion as a competition. Rather, it's sharing thoughts and ideas, hopefully to the benefit of us all.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:48AM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:48AM (#642780)

                  Chill out, bro.

                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:57AM (3 children)

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday February 24 2018, @12:57AM (#642786) Homepage Journal

                    I'm very relaxed.

                    Where did I say anything that made me seem exercised by your statement?

                    I view this as a discussion, not a debate.

                    Please don't project your views on me. I have my own that suit me quite well, thanks!

                    You are welcome on my lawn. I do kind of wish that you'd add to the topic at hand, rather than trying to do some kind of bizarre play-by-play, but it's not for me to determine that.

                    Toodles!

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:54AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @02:54AM (#642843)

                      That makes it a debate.

                      You have once again neither advanced your argument nor dismantled your opponent's argument.

                    • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:03AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2018, @04:03AM (#642873)

                      That makes it a debate.

                      You have once again neither advanced your argument nor dismantled your opponent's argument.

                    • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:48PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 25 2018, @09:48PM (#643589)

                      That makes it a debate.

                      You have once again neither advanced your argument nor dismantled your opponent's argument.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday February 23 2018, @12:30PM (1 child)

          by mhajicek (51) on Friday February 23 2018, @12:30PM (#642334)

          All governments are violently imposed. I was never asked for consent to be governed, and if I resisted I would be met with violence.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 23 2018, @06:01PM (#642499)

            All governments are violently imposed. I was never asked for consent to be governed, and if I resisted I would be met with violence.

            Good. I think you should. Hopefully, they'll jail you or just kill you. Then I wouldn't have to listen to more of your mindless drivel.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 23 2018, @04:52PM (1 child)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday February 23 2018, @04:52PM (#642456)

        I'd say "violently maintained" would be more accurate than "violently imposed." Imposed mostly talks about when the rules are first created, not when they're enforced in an ongoing fashion.

        im·pose
        imˈpōz
        verb
        gerund or present participle: imposing
        1.
        - force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place.
        "the decision was theirs and was not imposed on them by others"
        synonyms: foist, force, inflict, press, urge; More
        - forcibly put (a restriction) in place.
        "sanctions imposed on South Africa"
        - require (a duty, charge, or penalty) to be undertaken or paid.
        synonyms: levy, charge, apply, enforce; More
        - exert firm control over something.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 23 2018, @05:56PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @05:56PM (#642493) Journal

          OK. Whether imposed or maintained is more appropriate depends on the time span you are focusing on.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:40PM

    by NewNic (6420) on Thursday February 22 2018, @10:40PM (#642044) Journal

    While there are legitimate concerns about Google's monopolistic practices, most of the criticism is really coming from legacy businesses and their owners who would prefer to compete with the deck stacked their way.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory