Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the monopoly-money dept.

CNet:

"Today's big tech companies have [too much power over] our economy, our society, and our democracy," wrote Warren in a blog post. "They've bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation."

Warren said that big tech companies use mergers to swallow competition and sell products on their own e-commerce platforms, which hurt smaller businesses' opportunities to succeed. Weak antitrust enforcement also resulted in "a dramatic reduction" in competition and innovation in the tech industry, according to Warren's blog post.

With conservative voices decrying Big Tech censorship, internet activists decrying privacy violations, and now Senator Warren calling for outright dismemberment, Big Tech might be in for a rocky stretch of road.


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This discussion has been archived.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, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:16AM (30 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:16AM (#811832)

    Like the government perhaps?

    Typical socialist.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:18AM (18 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:18AM (#811851)

    The government has power, because it's the government.
    How it uses the power depends on whether the people bitch online or keep their elected officials scared.
    That's how the system should work.

    Private companies becoming TBTF, or wielding unreasonable power allowing them to control people's lives and threaten their freedoms, is not how the system should work.

    Not that I agree that they should be broken up; but throrough regulations is how you defend your freedoms and democracy.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:29AM (5 children)

      by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:29AM (#811857)

      but through armed militias is how you defend against regulation encroachment.

      Fixed that for you.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:41AM

        by bob_super (1357) on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:41AM (#811864)

        No.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:06AM (2 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:06AM (#811934) Journal

        And that's working so well so far in gun-saturated USA *where this story is taking place,* isn't it? God damn, are you an idiot. I guess when the only tool you have is a gun, every problem looks like a suspiciously Obama-shaped paper target.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:50PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:50PM (#812031)

          Where are the militias? Oh, right, labeled as terrorist organizations and targeted by the ATF.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:24PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:24PM (#812140) Journal

            Given what the last few (dozen...) self-styled "militias" got up to, that's not a surprise.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday March 09 2019, @06:37PM

        by dry (223) on Saturday March 09 2019, @06:37PM (#812095) Journal

        but through armed militias is how you make sure you get the correct regulations

        Fixed that for you.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:27AM (6 children)

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:27AM (#811876)

      I'm ready to see em broken up. They are all just too dangerous to allow to live in their current form.

      Facebook was founded the same day the govenment shut down their "Lifelog" program, then Zuck brings in the DARPA admin who was responsible?
      Google's founding is equally troubling. Microsoft isn't even an American corporation in any meaningful sense of the word anymore. Amazon is so far in bed with the government it can be hard to see where one ends and the other starts. And Apple is clearly a menace to the world.

      As to the morality of the government breaking up corporations, we settled that with the old time "trust busting" of yore. Publicly traded corporations are artificial government created entities. If the government lacks the authority to regulate its own creations, who does? Corporations were originally intended to allow raising large amounts of money to support capital intensive heavy industry. But there aren't any projects currently or proposed that require one entity to have control over a trillion dollars. I'd support a hard upper limit of $100B maximum sustained market cap. Stay over the limit for 365 consecutive days and you must file a plan to divide into two or more new entities. No one business should be worth $100B. Would put a swift end to the rampant M&A activity that is one of the key drivers of loss of competitors in the market. Inflation would push toward ever smaller entities over time.

      Perhaps make an exception for a focused entity that is doing one thing so well it is worth that much, it can exist so long as it never adds new side ventures, drops easily divided off parts, etc. Apple's iProducts division might need to be an exception for example. But lose the inhouse chip design shop to an independent entity. Lose the watch to an open API any smartwatch can talk to, etc. Would this exception be abusable?

      • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:48AM

        by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:48AM (#811890) Journal

        I'm ready to see em broken up. They are all just too dangerous to allow to live in their current form.

        I agree, I'm just suffering from some cognitive dissonance I need to take out back and shoot.

        --
        В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:21AM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:21AM (#811913) Journal

        So it sounds like you agree with Warren's position on this issue.

        And I think you would agree that some kind of market cap limitation on corporations is much more likely to come from the left/dems.

        So this is an honest question: Would you vote for her as president?

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:12AM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:12AM (#811937) Homepage Journal

          I also agree with Senator Warren of Mass., sometimes referred to as Pocahontas (the bad version). Don't worry, we're moving very strongly to break up Big Tech. Look at Amazon, they're closing almost 100 "Physical Locations." Something they never did when Cheatin' Obama was in office. But, I will never vote for Liz. She's getting slammed because she took a bogus DNA test and it showed that she may be 1/1024, far less than the average American. Now Cherokee Nation denies her, "DNA test is useless," complete and total Fraud. Even they don’t want her. Now that her claims of being of Indian heritage have turned out to be a scam and a lie, Elizabeth Warren should apologize for perpetrating this fraud against the American Public. Harvard called her "a person of color" (amazing con), and would not have taken her otherwise. Phoney!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @10:33AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @10:33AM (#811988)

          So this is an honest question: Would you vote for her as president?

          I'm big on minority representation so could only give her 1/1024th of my vote.

          • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday March 09 2019, @05:42PM

            by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @05:42PM (#812066) Journal

            Well, it's a range, and picking the least favorable (10 generations) over the most favorable (6 generations) seems unfair.

            Maybe split the difference to 8 generations back and giver her 1/256th of your vote?

            --
            В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:03AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:03AM (#811933) Journal

        All the planets must be in alignment or something. You've said something reasonable, rational, well-thought-out, well-reinforced with verifiable factual backup, and not even the least bit evil. More of this, please.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:01PM (#812131)

      thorough regulations to defend freedom? what a fucking slave.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:47PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:47PM (#812147) Journal

        You haven't thought this through very thoroughly, have you?

        Suppose there were no regulations--we call them "laws" where I come from--against things like theft, assault, or murder. Would you *truly* think yourself more free than if you didn't have to spend all your time worrying that someone stronger, sneakier, smarter, and/or better armed than you could at any time and for any reason and with no repercussions take everything from you up to and including your very life?

        If you want to be a minarchist, that's fine. I've actually been described as "left-libertarian in exile," which seems fair to me, and so could sympathize with that. But remember Einstein's supposed maxim, "as simple as possible, and no simpler." The fewest rules up front does not necessarily translate to the most freedom, and in fact, is guaranteed not to given the capacity for people to take actions which curtail the freedom of others.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:33PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:33PM (#812142) Journal

      Private companies becoming TBTF, or wielding unreasonable power allowing them to control people's lives and threaten their freedoms, is not how the system should work.

      What's unreasonable about the power that Amazon, Google, and Facebook have? Let us keep in mind that customers/end users of these platforms have even more power over these businesses than voters do over the governments. Because stop using a business's platform is much easier than stop using a government.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 11 2019, @01:45PM (1 child)

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday March 11 2019, @01:45PM (#812664) Journal

        What's unreasonable about the power that Amazon, Google, and Facebook have? Let us keep in mind that customers/end users of these platforms have even more power over these businesses than voters do over the governments. Because stop using a business's platform is much easier than stop using a government.

        As a software engineer, even I can't figure out how the fuck to stop using these platforms, so I'm not sure how any normal user is supposed to manage it. I can't even order parts from Sparkfun since blocking Google; I can't post comments on most websites or login to most forums either all thanks to reCaptcha. Most news websites break due to jQuery that they just link to Google for. There's very, very few major website that you can access without your information being transmitted to Facebook through their tracking icons. You can't even pay for smaller subscription video services, because most of them just post embedded private YouTube videos, which is still Google. I can read Soylent and I can SSH and that's about it.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @02:16PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 11 2019, @02:16PM (#812675) Journal

          As a software engineer, even I can't figure out how the fuck to stop using these platforms

          I can. Notice that we're complaining about companies with very public services rather than companies like Akamai Technologies with nearly invisible behind the scenes services.

          I can't even order parts from Sparkfun since blocking Google; I can't post comments on most websites or login to most forums either all thanks to reCaptcha.

          Ok. So what?

          Where would Google be without its search engine data? Just another tracker company without a means to acquire the data it needs to track. How would Facebook be able to place those tracking icons, if it doesn't have a business? The whole thing is way overblown.

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:09AM (10 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:09AM (#811936) Journal

    There comes a point where large enough businesses *are* effectively government, especially when you add regulatory capture into the mix.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:36PM (9 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:36PM (#812144) Journal

      There comes a point where large enough businesses *are* effectively government

      We aren't even remotely close to where that happens. That's even with a number of businesses partially or fully owned by a government.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:44PM (8 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:44PM (#812146) Journal

        I have two words for you, Hallow: "regulatory capture." The very moment even a single instance of regulatory capture occurs, you have a business that is effectively government. If you can't or won't see this, that is on *you,* not me.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:00AM (#812214)

          Easiest example is telecoms, but there are other industries that 100% collude to fix prices. If you want that type of service you will be bent over and profess your enjoyment the entire time.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @12:13PM (6 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 11 2019, @12:13PM (#812639) Journal

          I have two words for you, Hallow: "regulatory capture." The very moment even a single instance of regulatory capture occurs, you have a business that is effectively government.

          And how is that "effectively government"? There's a long ways to go.

          If you can't or won't see this, that is on *you,* not me.

          Unless I'm not the one with the optics problem. Regulatory capture is pretty weak rationalization for your earlier statement.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 11 2019, @06:48PM (5 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday March 11 2019, @06:48PM (#812850) Journal

            This is not difficult, Mr. Hallow. Regulatory capture means a business essentially makes the laws (and no, just because a given CEO is not literally penning the text of a law does not mean s/he is not making the law; so long as the legislature or some part thereof is bending to the business's will, it is in effect making law, the same way someone who hires a hitman is also a murderer, so don't even try that shit...).

            The Legislature writes laws, according to the Constitution. Businesses, of any stripe, do not. Regulatory capture is therefore a breach of the separation of powers. There is no clearer, easier way to spell this out. You are the one with the "optics problem," and there is none so blind as he who will not see.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @11:12PM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 11 2019, @11:12PM (#812963) Journal

              Regulatory capture means a business essentially makes the laws

              No, it doesn't.

              so long as the legislature or some part thereof is bending to the business's will, it is in effect making law

              Which is not regulatory capture.

              The Legislature writes laws, according to the Constitution. Businesses, of any stripe, do not.

              No, according to the Constitution. bills are merely "originated". There is no restriction on who writes them, be it a business, non profit, or congressional aide.

              Regulatory capture is therefore a breach of the separation of powers.

              And of course, that is not true.

              There is no clearer, easier way to spell this out.

              Materially wrong, four times in a row in one post.

              And notice that even if all of the above were fully true (which it's not BTW, such as in discrimination law, a key business cost which a business driven government wouldn't have in the first place!), it still doesn't make this nebulous business thing practically government.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:29AM (3 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:29AM (#813084) Journal

                Businesses are writing laws (getting them written through lobbying, which is the same thing). Keep burying your head in the sand, Hallow; it won't change reality. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make it go away.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:12PM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:12PM (#813299) Journal

                  Businesses are writing laws (getting them written through lobbying, which is the same thing).

                  So what? You're still missing the point. Government is vastly more than writing legislative bills or the regulators covering a particular industry. That's why a business, even one with undue influence over its corresponding niche in government is not "practically government". And we also ignore that business routinely doesn't get what it wants, contrary to the narrative. Otherwise we wouldn't have government agencies funding discrimination lawsuits against businesses (for a glaring example).

                  Further, it's utterly stupid to treat business as a single entity when it's instead hundreds of thousands of entities, just in the US. Even if we just consider the large multinationals, we're still talking thousands of companies, just in the US with somewhat larger numbers outside the US. That's not a very unified front with lots and lots of conflicting interests.

                  Keep burying your head in the sand, Hallow; it won't change reality.

                  You keep wasting your time saying things like that when it's quite clear that you are too ignorant to have a useful opinion on the matter.

                  My view on the matter is that business versus government is a useful, de facto separation of power in democracies. People who want to destroy much of the independence of business because it has influence on government are clueless. Government remains the greater danger. It is foolish to give them yet more power because of some minor exploitation of government by business interests.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:54PM (1 child)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:54PM (#813389) Journal

                    Ah, now you tip your hand.

                    > That's why a business, even one with undue influence over its corresponding niche in government is not "practically government".

                    I didn't say it became the ENTIRE government, dipshit, I said doing one of the functions reserved for government, in this case the Legislature. Don't be fucking stupid. Everyone knows what I meant and your attempt at pedantic nitpicking only makes you look like a dishonest shill.

                    Thank you for at least acknowledging that there is undue influence happening. Was that intentional? Doesn't seem in-character for you but I'm glad to see it just the same.

                    > Further, it's utterly stupid to treat business as a single entity when it's instead hundreds of thousands of entities

                    ...so the fuck what? They all have the profit motive in mind, and if you truly think large businesses never collude or conspire, you're somewhere between naive and too dumb to breathe without mechanical ventilation. Contrary to your bare assertion, there is *plenty* of unity when it comes to deregulation, lowering corporate taxes, reducing oversight, etc.

                    > My view on the matter is that business versus government is a useful, de facto separation of power in democracies.

                    It's more than useful, it's absolutely vital. And it's been corroded away by almost 40 years of Reaganomics and the associated corruption and bribery, referred to as "lobbying," with all its slimy bullshit including the revolving door phenomenon.

                    > People who want to destroy much of the independence of business because it has influence on government are clueless.

                    ...?!

                    > Government remains the greater danger. It is foolish to give them yet more power because of some minor exploitation of government by business interests.

                    This sort of zero-sum thinking is precisely why *you* are the one too ignorant to speak of these things. There is not a fixed amount of power floating out there in Platonic ideal phase space, just waiting to be divvied up between business and government. One need not gain if another loses, and one need not lose if another gains. Stopping business from corrupting the legislative process does not strengthen government power any more than removing a bitcoin-mining virus from your computer weakens the Cron daemon.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 13 2019, @05:47AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 13 2019, @05:47AM (#813595) Journal

                      I didn't say it became the ENTIRE government, dipshit,

                      Actually, that's what you did say. Words mean things. And if you had limited the scope to its appropriate level, I would have pointed out that the scope is small as I did later. And it still doesn't mean that a business which is in this alleged situation, still isn't "practically government".

                      I said doing one of the functions reserved for government, in this case the Legislature.

                      And let us note, writing a bill (which incidentally was a moved goalpost away from your earlier regulatory capture) is not a function reserved for government. Anyone can do it. Getting it voted into law is a different matter which requires the Legislative Branch, not a corporation, to do.

                      Don't be fucking stupid.

                      Back at you on that. It's really tiresome to have you say stupid stuff over and over again, then accuse me of stupidity. Start by not being the problem and then projecting on everyone else.

                      It's more than useful, it's absolutely vital. And it's been corroded away by almost 40 years of Reaganomics and the associated corruption and bribery, referred to as "lobbying," with all its slimy bullshit including the revolving door phenomenon.

                      You apparently aren't aware of how things were prior to Reagan. Protip: it wasn't that different except that there's now a huge amount of costly regulation that business has to follow these days. Funny how the power of businesses have actually diminished in the past 40 years and yet, you like many other people got it backwards.

                      Government remains the greater danger. It is foolish to give them yet more power because of some minor exploitation of government by business interests.

                      This sort of zero-sum thinking is precisely why *you* are the one too ignorant to speak of these things. There is not a fixed amount of power floating out there in Platonic ideal phase space, just waiting to be divvied up between business and government. One need not gain if another loses, and one need not lose if another gains. Stopping business from corrupting the legislative process does not strengthen government power any more than removing a bitcoin-mining virus from your computer weakens the Cron daemon.

                      Zero sum thinking comes into play every time we use government power to impose on some segment of society. Notice that the story was about a US Senator calling for the breakup of several US businesses via said government power. There's no room for positive sum activity in that process. You can't "stop" business from "corrupting" the legislative process without giving government additional power. At the very least, it's an attack on the First and Fourth Amendments rights of the people making up those corporations which will automatically strengthen government's role in these economic sectors in a zero sum way.