Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
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This discussion has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:15AM (#811830)

    Welcome to surveillance capitalism where every last bit of your data dandruff will be monetized.

  • (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.

    • (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) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> 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.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:16AM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Saturday March 09 2019, @12:16AM (#811833)

    "Senator Warren -- thanks for not mentioning us, considering our history. Mr. Nadella and the board appreciate it."

    "Certainly, it's important we focus on the most prominent and relevant abusers. Um, who did you say you represented again?"

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:04AM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:04AM (#811844)

    Our one and only problem with the internet is the ISP. They are what protect Google and Facebook from competition, with our pitiful upload speeds. We should demand symmetry. Oh well, once again the democrats are shooting at the wrong target, no doubt it's part of their censorship campaign. It's the only plausible reason for doing this.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:20AM (10 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:20AM (#811852) Journal

      They are what protect Google and Facebook from competition, with our pitiful upload speeds. We should demand symmetry.

      Are you suggesting people run search engines, Mastodon instances, etc. on home servers?

      You can duplicate some functions but Google and Facebook have access to exabytes of storage, petabytes of RAM, exaflops of computing, etc. They are also building their own undersea cables to move data around, and can duplicate data to centers all over the world to speed up access.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:47AM (7 children)

        by Lester (6231) on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:47AM (#811889) Journal

        Many of ISP customers use google, facebook etc, if the ISP give preference to traffic from/to this companies, the overall perception of most of its customers is "this ISP has a fast internet". So this big players have more traffic, so they earn more money, so they can buy better facilities, so they are faster, so more people want to use their services, so ISPs give preference to this companies: Any competition is destroyed.

        In Spain, mobile companies offer an amount of GB of traffic a month, but data used for Whatsapp is free. Sure whatsapp is THE instant message service, the app everybody has. But with such offer they have made even more difficult to enter a new player.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @05:53AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @05:53AM (#811950)

          In Spain, mobile companies offer an amount of GB of traffic a month, but data used for Whatsapp is free. Sure whatsapp is THE instant message service, the app everybody has. But with such offer they have made even more difficult to enter a new player.

          WTF are people instant messaging each other, that they would need to worry about hitting a transfer cap? Whole movies?

          • (Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday March 09 2019, @06:12PM (1 child)

            by Lester (6231) on Saturday March 09 2019, @06:12PM (#812077) Journal

            Yes, teenagers send a lot of stupid videos and many, many photos by whatsapp. In addtion, an IM that should be a just few bytes (at least according to its origins, jabber) now sends metrics and God and Zuckerberg know what.

            But that's not the problem. The problem is facebook APP, Instagram APP, streaming videos plus weather applet, games with its advertisings that send nobody knows what. All them drain the bandwidth but the important part is ... magically Whatsapp still works.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:37AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:37AM (#811960)

          If only there was a concept of Network Neutrality we could rally behind.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:04PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:04PM (#812102)

            There is. It's called "dumb pipe", like a phone line. No DHCP, no DNS. You do P2P, just like the phone line. You build/buy your own damn firewall. Bandwidth is capped by wire gauge and simple multiplexing. Anything less is not neutral.

            • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:45AM (1 child)

              by Pino P (4721) on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:45AM (#812222) Journal

              Bandwidth is capped by wire gauge and simple multiplexing.

              But once you've "multiplexed" a whole neighborhood of subscribers onto one cell tower, how many of those subscribers will be able to watch the video services to which they subscribe at the same time?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:54PM (#812377)

                You don't oversell your capacity. You have to put up a "fatter" pipe. And you develop alternative routing, don't use just a single path. You know, one of those "neural" things. We should make the network more ad hoc so we don't need big towers maintained by big companies.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:13PM (#812137)

        "Are you suggesting people run search engines, Mastodon instances, etc. on home servers?"

        yes. we need p2p anon apps not centralized company run slave check in stations.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:14PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:14PM (#813301) Journal

        You can duplicate some functions but Google and Facebook have access to exabytes of storage, petabytes of RAM, exaflops of computing, etc. They are also building their own undersea cables to move data around, and can duplicate data to centers all over the world to speed up access.

        That sounds cool. I demand my exabyte symmetry with Google and Facebook! Demand, I say! And where's my hundreds of datacenters?!

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:06AM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:06AM (#811871) Journal

      When you can simplify an issue to the point that you have a "one and only problem", you probably don't understand the issue.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:32AM (#811878)

        Yes, I do. The ISP is it. They have all the power. Google and Facebook have none. Service is the only issue. Content is trivially dealt with, on a level playing field. Symmetry is right and proper. Don't let the ISP turn the internet into one way TV. That is what Google/Facebook need to grow as big as they do. Breaking them up is beyond stupid, it's malicious. This isn't Standard Oil or a railroad monopoly. The ISP is. They are the railroad that rations access. Gotta do the common carrier thing.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:49AM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:49AM (#811891) Journal

      Our one and only problem with the internet is the ISP. They are what protect Google and Facebook from competition, with our pitiful upload speeds.

      A search engine that also tracks the hell out of you is not really an upstream-bandwidth constrained service.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:03AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:03AM (#811903)

        A search engine is a search engine. It has nothing to do with your access to the internet. And the tracking issue is bullshit also. Put on a hood! If your ISP will let you...

  • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:11AM (8 children)

    by Hartree (195) on Saturday March 09 2019, @01:11AM (#811848)

    <cynical>Guess who turned her down for contributions to her campaign.</cynical>

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:32AM (7 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:32AM (#811877) Journal

      Guess who turned her down for contributions to her campaign.

      It's the opposite, actually. She doesn't accept Corporate PAC money. [opensecrets.org]

      • (Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:49AM (1 child)

        by Lester (6231) on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:49AM (#811893) Journal

        So she is going to be marginal contender.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:08AM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:08AM (#811907) Journal

          No, there's a few of them including Bernie Sanders. And he's rolling in dough.

          I hate to say "crowdfunding" but crap-tons of small-dollar donations is the new hotness amongst the liberals.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:17PM (4 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:17PM (#812105) Journal

        Doesn't make her idea any better. Google/Facebook/Amazon cannot interfere with your internet access. They are in no way a monopoly. All their power was given to them by the users. We can turn our backs, and suffer brief minor inconvenience at the most, and then we will produce a replacement.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 11 2019, @03:21PM (3 children)

          by urza9814 (3954) on Monday March 11 2019, @03:21PM (#812703) Journal

          Google/Facebook/Amazon cannot interfere with your internet access.

          They kinda can, actually. Try blocking recaptcha sometime and see how many websites you can still log in to...not many of them IME.

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday March 11 2019, @09:03PM (2 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday March 11 2019, @09:03PM (#812913) Journal

            It is the ISP that prohibits us from hosting our own websites and mail servers etc, and limits our upload bandwidth, not Google/Facebook/Amazon. The idea is to send the business to them, unopposed.

            We need to make the internet like the telephone. Right now we are letting the ISP make it into the television with one way communication. There is insufficient demand for symmetry

            Attacking Google/Facebook/Amazon is a distraction, if not outright extortion for more "campaign" financing. It completely overlooks the real problem, probably intentionally, for all the obvious reasons.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 12 2019, @11:22AM (1 child)

              by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @11:22AM (#813177) Journal

              I run my own email server out of my living room. Had a diaspora* pod too, but that got a bit lonely ;) My YaCy experiments haven't been going so well though (but that's more an issue with the software than the network...would probably work better if I could get it to run for more than a day or two without locking up or crashing and corrupting the configs...)

              Of course, now that I think about it, I've got a symmetric connection too...75mbps both ways. But if you need that to run a mail server you're doing something very wrong...

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 12 2019, @09:12PM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @09:12PM (#813470) Journal

                75mbps both ways. But if you need that to run a mail server you're doing something very wrong...

                Mail server, file server, streaming server, *sigh* everything but the beer and hotdog....

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:03AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:03AM (#811869)

    google helped fund cpac(cuckservative political convention) this year. recently they admitted they helped fund national review (gay bill buckley's conservative rag). google isn't going to get punked by either party.

    ob: 1/1024 indian wilma used to be a corporate lawyer before being a politician. she won't do shit that hurts her ability to rake in a fortune doing globohomo's bidding.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:58PM (2 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:58PM (#812148) Journal

      Just a friendly reminder: using "cuck" as if it's making a valid point instantly makes everyone with even half a brain drop the rest of your post into /dev/null. Go back to 8chan.

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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:03AM (#812216)

        Since it was CPAC they described I imagine it was meant as an almost more literal insult. The GOP has been cuckolded by Putin pretty well. One could argue that the use of "snowflake" falls under the same rules. Either way both insults are pretty low on the useful discussion index.

      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:49AM

        by Pino P (4721) on Sunday March 10 2019, @03:49AM (#812223) Journal

        What do you call someone who knows his limits and has the humility to let a specialist handle tough scenes while supervising the action for safety?

        A cuckold.

        This is why "cuck" fails as an insult.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:17AM (10 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:17AM (#811874) Journal

    True, government stood idly by, and watched the various tech companies swallow the competition. They allowed Microsoft to monopolize the world, rather than just the US. But, those tech companies aren't the core problem.

    The core is the assumption that all these companies have some kind of "right" to everyone's data. Running a close second, is the advertising industry. They have been more than happy to pay the likes of Google to supply them with all that data. Our government should have created the GDPR ten or even twenty years before the European Union did.

    Most people today don't even see a problem with tech companies. Everyone seems to believe that "bigger is better". One big Google has to be better than 125 different tech companies competing with each other, right?

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:37AM (5 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:37AM (#811881) Journal

      I would love to see Facebook wiped off the face of the planet. But, I have a hard time seeing the antitrust violations there.

      Google, maybe, though personally it seems a bit tenuous.

      Amazon is a software company driving grocery stores out of business. That's one I can get on board with.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:47AM (4 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @02:47AM (#811888) Journal

        Every time government approves of a multi-billion dollar acquisition, they are assisting in creating monopolistic corporations. Smaller acquisitions fly under the radar, but they work to the same end.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:00AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:00AM (#811898)

          This is a policy position, the correct thing to do is make a big stink about the telecoms themselves along with FB / Google. As others are saying those are definitely the more important monopoly threat. Maybe she has a hidden agenda for Big Telecom, maybe not, but without some type of evidence you shouldn't judge too quickly.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @07:26PM (#812108)

            the correct thing to do is make a big stink about the telecoms themselves along with FB / Google. As others are saying those are definitely the more important monopoly threat.

              Yes. Another worthy cause is being torpedoed by the popular fascism that seems to fly under everybody's radar. Attacking the content providers reveals a not so well hidden censorship agenda. Once we deal with the ISP issue, the content giants will naturally fall by the wayside.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:02AM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:02AM (#811901) Journal

          That's definitely where the oversight should be occurring, but here we are....

          John Oliver's take on corporate consolidation was pretty good. [youtube.com] If you haven't seen it.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:07AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:07AM (#811906)

            Oversight has to come from the voting booth, or it simply won't happen.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:53AM (2 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Saturday March 09 2019, @03:53AM (#811929)

      One big Google has to be better than 125 different tech companies competing with each other, right?

      Not in the international markets. If the US wasn't so under-regulated it would never have gained market dominance in so many industrial fields in the last century.

      The trick is not letting US corporate predation go as far as to alienate key US allies or the American voter while making sure the US is gaining economically out of all of this...

      Ops.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:37AM (1 child)

        by richtopia (3160) on Saturday March 09 2019, @09:37AM (#811980) Homepage Journal

        International markets is exactly why I'm hesitant to agree with Senator Warren. If these American companies are broken up, will the daughter companies be able to compete with massive foreign entities like Alibaba? Looking at smaller countries as an example, typically there are native language equivalencies of Facebook, Google, and Amazon, however the massive American companies still dominate thanks to an international presence and more advanced features.

        I don't have a good solution for the problem. Perhaps forcing federation based standardizations on some services, which would help mitigate vendor lock-in.

        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:27PM

          by RamiK (1813) on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:27PM (#812119)

          I don't have a good solution for the problem.

          Campaign funds reform and an end to industry-to-capital hill-to-industry job rotation will sort most of it under two or three house terms. Once the tie that binds corrupt politicians and high ranking officials to lobbying groups and corporations is cut, the solutions will present themselves in the working committees. Just limit donations to $10000 per-individual and pass a law stating a regulator or advisor to a regulator body isn't allowed to work in the same industry or hold relevant stocks some 10 years after they leave government.

          Republicans... Democrats... Everything will sort itself out for the better once.

          --
          compiling...
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by krishnoid on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:25AM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:25AM (#811969)

      The core is the assumption that all these companies have some kind of "right" to everyone's data. Running a close second, is the advertising industry.

      And running a close 0th is the credit agencies. Tech companies know who my friends are and advertisers know what flavor potato chips I buy, but credit agencies can misstate loan information and leak financial information, locking you out of or jeopardizing your engagement with, well, capitalism itself in a capitalist country. You want these companies not to have your data? At least Google lets you download most of your data and close your account, with nearly the exact opposite [cbsnews.com] happening in the financial sector [huffingtonpost.com].

      If "Pocahontas" wants to take on these kinds of injustice, she can start by handing back those beads and (metaphor breaking apart here) reclaiming New York and everyone's financial identity from *these* offenders first. She could also start just by implementing what Europe already has in place regarding data privacy.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by DrkShadow on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:15AM (2 children)

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Saturday March 09 2019, @04:15AM (#811938)

    Someone should really split up AT&T.. it's getting huge. Trying to purchase Time Warner/CNN, even! Cable/phone/ISP/content provider together, no reason to let anyone else compete. Someone should really split that company up!

    • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Saturday March 09 2019, @05:50PM

      by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 09 2019, @05:50PM (#812068) Journal

      Someone should really split up AT&T.. it's getting huge.

      This sounds familiar.

      --
      В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
    • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:15PM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Saturday March 09 2019, @08:15PM (#812116) Homepage Journal

      This is the real Collusion. AT&T tried to buy Time Warner, and thus CNN. I promised that's a merger we would not approve in my administration. You elected me to stop that one. And I stopped it. A promise kept. I said to Gary Cohn (National Economic Council), file the lawsuit, call Justice Dept. Get that lawsuit filed, I want that deal blocked! And Gary's a terrible listener, I had to tell him 50 times before it happened. But, it happened. Because of me.

      Not before something horrible happened to me. I was on a long but successful trip to Asia. While in the Philippines I was forced to watch CNN, which I had not done in months, and again realized how bad, and FAKE, it is. Loser!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @10:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 09 2019, @10:08PM (#812152)

    Don't break them up. Turn them into government departments. It's the democrat way!

  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday March 10 2019, @01:09AM

    by Gaaark (41) on Sunday March 10 2019, @01:09AM (#812194) Journal

    There IS intelligence in the US!

    Bernie, Warren... I like them... People who realise that monopolies need to be broken and REAL competition needs to be brought back. AND, don't let the rich buy everything: votes, laws, politicians, competition...

    Lawdy, lawdy, let there be intelligent voters!

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by slap on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:04AM (1 child)

    by slap (5764) on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:04AM (#812226)

    Instead of breaking up corporations, we should break up the Republican and Democratic parties.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday March 12 2019, @09:16PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday March 12 2019, @09:16PM (#813472) Journal

      That's easy, just stop voting for them, and they will disappear.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(1)