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This discussion has been archived.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: 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...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.