SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[...] 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
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 23 2018, @06:07PM (5 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
Whoosh. Stupid or trolling?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek