The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Free Vulcan on March 08, 2019, 02:51:34 pm
-
(https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/warrenelizabeth_021419sr2_lead.jpg?itok=JHQeMyVu)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for breaking up Silicon Valley's largest companies on Friday, saying that the tech giants have gained " too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy."
"To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it’s time to break up our biggest tech companies," Warren said in a post on Medium.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/433186-warren-wants-to-break-up-big-tech-companies
-
Because we need to give the Mom and Pop chipmakers a shot. *****rollingeyes*****
-
I see people here who wants the same thing.
-
Sort of like breaking up Ma Bell years and years ago.
-
...saying that the tech giants have gained " too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy."
I must admit that I -almost- agree with her on this.
We don't want government gaining too much "power" over our lives (doesn't it have enough already?).
Should we not be wary when a few corporations, under the control of relatively few individuals at the top of those corporations, acquire the same?
-
She's about 1/3 right (and 1/1024th native).
We're not a democracy, and it's big government that has too much power over our economy and our society.
-
Sweeping regulation on all corporate influence over government. End lobbying.
-
Sort of like breaking up Ma Bell years and years ago.
Cause MaBell was a public utility and needed to be broken up.
Google, Facebook, Twitter and others are not public utility.
Amazon does have competition.
-
Cause MaBell was a public utility and needed to be broken up.
Google, Facebook, Twitter and others are not public utility.
Amazon does have competition.
Agree with the first two, question the third.
-
Agree with the first two, question the third.
They do have competition. Brick and Mortars have been upping their shipping game. Walmart, Lowes, Home Despot etc.
-
...saying that the tech giants have gained " too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy."
I must admit that I -almost- agree with her on this.
We don't want government gaining too much "power" over our lives (doesn't it have enough already?).
Should we not be wary when a few corporations, under the control of relatively few individuals at the top of those corporations, acquire the same?
Monopolies are also easier for the government to control, they become government-run for all intents and purposes.
-
They do have competition. Brick and Mortars have been upping their shipping game. Walmart, Lowes, Home Despot etc.
Walmart has upped their ecommerce game and jet.com might give Amazon a run for their money. So I don't think that Amazon needs to be broken up.
-
Sort of like breaking up Ma Bell years and years ago.
And railroads, and bnks, and oil companies.
Big Social media are already censoring for the
chines.
And hey alreadycensor political speech favoring the left in America, Canada, Europe, etc.
If you think an unregulated, wide openfree, speech capitalistic utopia will give conservatism a place and means to be heard, you are even more naive than I thought.
I watched diiscussion on the IDW with Jaack Dorsey (head of Twitter) , his head lawyer, Joe Rogan, Tim Poole.
They readily admit their political bias, and won't quit until made to. Same for the others.
Youtube andFacebook likewise.
Of course if cyou prefer leftism as far as can be seen into the future, let them ontrol your elections.
They can.
-
And railroads, and bnks, and oil companies.
Big Social media are already censoring for the
chines.
And hey alreadycensor political speech favoring the left in America, Canada, Europe, etc.
If you think an unregulated, wide openfree, speech capitalistic utopia will give conservatism a place and means to be heard, you are even more naive than I thought.
I watched diiscussion on the IDW with Jaack Dorsey (head of Twitter) , his head lawyer, Joe Rogan, Tim Poole.
They readily admit their political bias, and won't quit until made to. Same for the others.
Youtube andFacebook likewise.
Of course if cyou prefer leftism as far as can be seen into the future, let them ontrol your elections.
They can.
Social Media is not a public utility.
-
I see people here who wants the same thing.
I'm against breaking up "big tech". Tech is inherently anti monopoly. Remember the big tech companies of yesteryear? Like dec and ibm. Remember when people though Microsoft would totally take over?
But... I don't hold it against people for disagreeing with me. I don't have much love for Google.
-
I'm against breaking up "big tech". Tech is inherently anti monopoly. Remember the big tech companies of yesteryear? Like dec and ibm. Remember when people though Microsoft would totally take over?
But... I don't hold it against people for disagreeing with me. I don't have much love for Google.
I like Google, but I don't see Google dominating the market forever. Someone else will come along. I remember the lawsuit from the Clinton admin to breakup Microsoft (mainly cause they wanted campaign cash from them).
-
Warren wants something forgettable that will place
her name and photo in the news. Nothing more.
Something to be flip flopped next week.
:)
-
...saying that the tech giants have gained " too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy."
I must admit that I -almost- agree with her on this.
We don't want government gaining too much "power" over our lives (doesn't it have enough already?).
Should we not be wary when a few corporations, under the control of relatively few individuals at the top of those corporations, acquire the same?
The message is good, however; technologies do have unanticipated repercussions in society, particularly in the area of politics, privacy and interstate commerce. These impacts are not posed by other industries. So, passing safeguards against monopolistic behavior in tech makes some constitutional sense.
The problem, however, is the messenger. She’s a phony, through and through.
-
Cause MaBell was a public utility and needed to be broken up.
Google, Facebook, Twitter and others are not public utility.
Amazon does have competition.
Google, Twitter and Facebook have all greatly impacted society through domination of the internet (similar to Ma Bell domination).
Amazon has competition?? Very little. They are the reason why so many brick and mortar stores have closed -- they are the dominant internet store.
They of course are not utility companies in the true sense, but I see the internet is a modern day 'utility' company. Google, Twitter, Amazon and Facebook, dominate the internet and greatly influence information people receive and how they shop.
-
Google, Twitter and Facebook have all greatly impacted society through domination of the internet (similar to Ma Bell domination).
Amazon has competition?? Very little. They are the reason why so many brick and mortar stores have closed -- they are the dominant internet store.
They of course are not utility companies in the true sense, but I see the internet is a modern day 'utility' company. Google, Twitter, Amazon and Facebook, dominate the internet and greatly influence information people receive and how they shop.
Google, Twitter and Facebook don't have the monopoly power that T had. If you wanted phone service, you went with T because that is all there was. I can remember when they wouldn't even let you use a phone they didn't own. They owned the lines, switches, switching protocols, etc. If someone wanted to compete with them, all they had to do would be to run new lines to every house in the US.
Google, Twitter and Facebook aren't even monopolies, as they lack a significant barrier to entry. I could write a competitive product and be up and running in an afternoon. I'd get my butt kicked, at least at first, but I could enter the market and compete easily.