Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Democrats Apple

House Democrats Tackle Big Tech 'Monopolies' (axios.com) 119

The House Judiciary Committee says Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are monopolies -- but its new plan to rein in their power won't change anything overnight. Instead, Democratic lawmakers propose to rewrite American antitrust law in order to restructure the U.S.'s most successful and powerful industry over time. From a report: The report is a long pass down the field of the tech industry's unfolding conflicts. It could be game-changing -- but it also might never get completed. The report, which runs more than 450 pages, proposes broad updates to antitrust law, including: limiting companies' ability to compete unfairly against third parties on their own platforms by either requiring online marketplaces to be independently run businesses or establishing rules for how such marketplaces can be organized; blocking online platforms from giving themselves preferential treatment or playing favorites with other content providers; requiring social networks to be interoperable so that people can communicate across platforms and carry their data over from one platform to another; directing antitrust enforcers to assume that an acquisition by a dominant tech firm is anticompetitive unless proven otherwise; and allowing news publishers to team up to negotiate against tech platforms looking to carry their content.

Committee investigators spent 16 months reviewing mountains of emails, memos and other evidence to reach these conclusions about the companies:
Amazon: The internet retail giant achieved its dominant position in part through acquiring competitors; has a monopoly over and mistreats third-party sellers; and has created a conflict of interest through its double role as an operator of its marketplace and also a seller there.
Apple: The report says Apple exerts monopoly power over software distribution to more than half the mobile devices in the U.S. It accuses the company of exploiting rivals by levying commissions and fees and copying apps, and says Apple gives preference to its own apps and services.
Facebook: The social media network has monopoly power in the social networking space, the report finds, and takes a "copy, acquire, kill" approach to would-be rivals such as WhatsApp and Instagram, both of which it bought in the early 2010s.
Google: The search engine has a monopoly in the general online search and search advertising markets, according to the report, maintaining its position through anticompetitive tactics such as undermining vertical search providers and acquiring rivals.

"To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons," write the authors of the report. The other side: The companies all deny that they hold monopoly positions or that their practices and acquisitions violate antitrust law, and argue that the tech industry remains healthily competitive.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Democrats Tackle Big Tech 'Monopolies'

Comments Filter:
  • This is the MO here. Vilify the huge corporations and break them up? Naw, I think the US government has realized how much money they can make off of this from the EU. The government needs it's fair share!!!

    Why don't we look at the most corrupt monopoly of them all: government.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      We claim to believe in capitalism, it only works when there's competition and no 500 lb gorilla in the room keeping more efficient companies or better products from the market. It needs rules and referees to function. Further, while we believe in Capitalism, most of us (by population, not dollars) believe in democracy and individual liberty more. That takes even more rules.

      The libertarian ideal is a childish wet dream that always devolves into a thugs with the most guns dictating how things work.

      • My response was more as a gag. Notice the government doesn't go after companies who are not making alot of money or have alot of money on hand? Can't you admit this looks a bit like a money grab.

        I've always said, follow the money, and that is double in the govenment.

        • To be fair, can you name another company that doesn't make a lot of money that holds a dominate position in a powerful industry? The whole point of anti-trust is to not let companies use their dominate position which makes a lot of money to squash competitors or to use the money they make in the dominate position to subsidize and euthanize players in other industries. Which is exactly what amazon, google and facebook have done.
          • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

            Notice the government doesn't go after companies who are not making alot of money or have alot of money on hand? Can't you admit this looks a bit like a money grab.

            To be fair, can you name another company that doesn't make a lot of money that holds a dominate position in a powerful industry?

            Good point. If they are going after companies with monopoly power from market dominance, I'd say by definition that cannot include companies that are not making a lot of money.

            The whole point of anti-trust is to not let companies use their dominate position which makes a lot of money to squash competitors or to use the money they make in the dominate position to subsidize and euthanize players in other industries. Which is exactly what amazon, google and facebook have done.

            Right.

            Turns out that monopoly power destroys the workings of a free market. You should have learned that in economics 101.

        • This does not look like a money grab at all, their decisions actually seem fairly ideal, although the devil will be in the legal details.

          I have seen money grabs on rich corporations, usually that comes up when we talk about how they are taxed. Then, rather than fix the tax law (admittedly, nearly impossible, especially right now), they attempt to fine, rape and pillage the richest guy in the room. The EU does sometimes show us the way on that one, although I don't think we've ever been above it. Either way,

      • >"We claim to believe in capitalism, it only works when there's competition [...] The libertarian ideal is a childish wet dream"

        A large percent of conservatives and libertarians also believe in monopoly controls of one form or another. They believe in capitalism and free markets primarily but also know those don't work if there are monopolies interfering. So it is not uncommon to have both supporting breaking up companies or going after them when they are abusing power.

        It is NOT common, however, for t

    • Why don't we look at the most corrupt monopoly of them all: government.

      You're full of shit. We elect the government. Any corruption in our government is a reflection on the voters, who reliably reelect 90% of their corrupt politicians every single time. What incentive is there to correct the problem with numbers like that?

      • Well, ideally we would elect our government. Unfortunately with the more extreme gerrymandering and voter supression going on these days, its more like the government chooses its voters.

    • by whitroth ( 9367 )

      "Biggest monopoiy"? So, you think that Big Corporate Brother, where anyone other than the 1% has no control, no way to affect it, is good?

  • by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @09:53AM (#60581138)

    Back in the 90's, before the Department of Justice brought charges against Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft had a total of two lobbyists, and spent next to nothing on lobbying activities. After the case, Microsoft has an entire office in Washington DC.

    The cynical reading would be that politicians saw a potential source of political funding, and leveraged the lawsuit to get Microsoft more "involved" in politics. Somewhere floating around the internet is a somewhat famous voice mail that a senator left for a road paving company in her state, stating that she sits on the federal transportation panel, and that she was surprised that the company hasn't "reached out" to her for support. I think we are seeing the same thing here played out on a larger scale.

    • by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:09AM (#60581198) Homepage Journal

      An even more cynical take would be to remember that the Democrats basically blamed Facebook for Hillary losing in 2016, and that this is essentially payback for that.

      There's a real strong push from the left to "do something about big tech." Of course, the exact problem with "big tech" is sort of nebulous (it "promotes extremism" or something) so the "solutions" being offered are just as nebulous. (What exactly do they have monopolies on? How would breaking them up help? Who knows!)

      From what I can tell, this is less about soliciting more campaign money, and more about traditional "wedge issue" politics for a certain segment of the left that sees "big tech" as an enemy.

    • The cynical reading would be that politicians saw a potential source of political funding, and leveraged the lawsuit to get Microsoft more "involved" in politics.

      That's not cynical, that's outright conspiracy nutjobbery. There was no shortage of lobbying and "donations" prior to the Microsoft case.

  • by Pollux ( 102520 ) <speter@tedata[ ]t.eg ['.ne' in gap]> on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:00AM (#60581148) Journal

    The House Judiciary Committee says Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are monopolies -- but its new plan to rein in their power won't change anything overnight. Instead, Democratic lawmakers propose to rewrite American antitrust law in order to restructure the U.S.'s most successful and powerful industry over time.

    After looking at the history of antitrust investigations by the US Government, I can only conclude that politicians let monopolies happen until the monopoly stops working for them and starts working against them. We shouldn't be upset with Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, AT&T, American Tobacco, Standard Oil, and so on, as much as we should be upset with Uncle Sam.

    • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:32AM (#60581292)

      After looking at the history of antitrust investigations by the US Government, I can only conclude that politicians let monopolies happen until the monopoly stops working for them and starts working against them.

      A juvenile assessment at best. A better assessment is that new and emerging markets are difficult to regulate, especially when many politicians think any regulation is too much regulation. Further impeding reforms from being made is lobbying, super PACs and the unabated flow of money into politics.

      Nothing is as black and white as people want them to be.

      • Blaming the money is wagging the dog.

        Blame the star struck people that reelect celebrity bling in search of preferential treatment and personal attention

        • Blaming the money is wagging the dog.

          Money is merely the carrot. So long as there is money involved then there will always be someone willing to follow that carrot. This is a fundamental truth and not a complex on at that.

          Blame the star struck people that reelect...

          They are not blameless but they are not organized enough to recognize much less correct the situation. Ranked voting could address this but that requires politicians to work against their own interests.

          • This is a fundamental truth and not a complex on at that.

            Absolutely true. It is not the carrot's fault for being so desired. And the carrot cannot change itself into something less desirous. So the obligation falls on the human to stop acting like animals thinking of nothing but carrots.

            In all our various democracies and republics around the world, the single fatal flaw is the voter. The system reflects them.

            • Absolutely true. It is not the carrot's fault for being so desired. And the carrot cannot change itself into something less desirous. So the obligation falls on the human to stop acting like animals thinking of nothing but carrots.

              Therein lies the problem, there is always plenty of people that willing to follow the carrot. The problem is that in addition to being desirable that money also helps people get elected. It's not the only factor but it is a large factor because no party will support a candidate that cannot draw in campaign funding. The conclusion is that changing how campaigns are funded is a way to change who can be a candidate and therefore who gets elected.

              Ranked voting and publicly funding campaigns would radically c

              • There is no reason to make the public pay for political campaigns. The whole idea sounds very fascist. Campaigning is done backwards anyway. We should be treating the job as a service, like jury duty, not electing snake oil selling egomaniacs that want to control the world.

                there is always plenty of people that willing to follow the carrot

                Then it's an evolutionary issue. That's disappointing. I expected better from humans, since they claim not to be animals. Even ranked voting will need sufficient demand from the voters, I believe Maine is the example of the week. Maybe so

                • There is no reason to make the public pay for political campaigns.

                  I literally just described a very good reason.

                  The whole idea sounds very fascist.

                  Then you don't understand what fascism is.

                  Then it's an evolutionary issue. That's disappointing. I expected better from humans, since they claim not to be animals.

                  It's not that simple as motivations vary far and wide but no, we are and have always been animals. Just because humans are capable of higher thought doesn't mean humans are less of an animal somehow.

      • After looking at the history of antitrust investigations by the US Government, I can only conclude that politicians let monopolies happen until the monopoly stops working for them and starts working against them.

        A juvenile assessment at best. A better assessment is that new and emerging markets are difficult to regulate, especially when many politicians think any regulation is too much regulation. Further impeding reforms from being made is lobbying, super PACs and the unabated flow of money into politics.

        Many politicians are greedy and corrupt who have probably done enough to deserve jail time. The juvenile assessment, would be dismissing Greed as anything but Greed. The only logical explanation to object to any regulation, is corruption.

        Nothing is as black and white as people want them to be.

        And yet it could be, if you simply got Greed N. Corruption off the fucking board of every major US Corporation.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          The only logical explanation to object to any regulation, is corruption.

          Suppose that I wished to regulate industry with the following law:

          Because senior citizens are far more likely to fall victim to online scams, in the interest of protecting the public from these scams, no company shall provide Internet service to anyone over the age of 60 unless sponsored by someone under the age of 40 who must monitor the senior citizen's Internet use to reduce the risk of harm.

          Would you object to that regulation? Then you must be corrupt. :-)

          I'm assuming what you meant was that the only reason to object to any reasonable regulation (which the above was clearly not intended to be) that has broad voter support (which the above clearly would not) is corruption. And that, I would probably agree with, but with the caveat that "reasonable" must be carefully defined to ensure that laws that disproportionately harm any m

          • The only logical explanation to object to any regulation, is corruption.

            Suppose that I wished to regulate industry with the following law:

            Because senior citizens are far more likely to fall victim to online scams, in the interest of protecting the public from these scams, no company shall provide Internet service to anyone over the age of 60 unless sponsored by someone under the age of 40 who must monitor the senior citizen's Internet use to reduce the risk of harm.

            Would you object to that regulation? Then you must be corrupt. :-)

            I'm assuming what you meant was that the only reason to object to any reasonable regulation (which the above was clearly not intended to be) that has broad voter support (which the above clearly would not) is corruption. And that, I would probably agree with, but with the caveat that "reasonable" must be carefully defined to ensure that laws that disproportionately harm any minority group are not considered reasonable (or, for that matter, any laws that discriminate against any group for pretty much any reason other than income).

            Good catch, and yes, I certainly did mean reasonable regulation. But the problem with "broad" voter support is we tend to really pay attention to fringe/minority groups that hardly represent the majority. I'm certainly not meaning to incite some kind of flame war, but transgender athletes in sports is a prime example here. Gender dysmorphia represents less than 1% of society. And yet we have basically destroyed the concept of female competition to specifically accommodate that extremely small minority.

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              Good catch, and yes, I certainly did mean reasonable regulation. But the problem with "broad" voter support is we tend to really pay attention to fringe/minority groups that hardly represent the majority. I'm certainly not meaning to incite some kind of flame war, but transgender athletes in sports is a prime example here. Gender dysmorphia represents less than 1% of society. And yet we have basically destroyed the concept of female competition to specifically accommodate that extremely small minority. Seems all the historical evidence and biological facts in the world didn't matter. And biological women sadly not participating in sports is the end result.

              If that is happening on a large scale, then that's unfortunate. Still, I think that most of the time, those concerns are overblown. There are many stories from the early days of sports where women played on boys' basketball teams. Women still play on nearly all-male football teams in some places. They have to make some accommodations, and I'm not sure what they do about the locker room in those situations, but they make it work, and they do it out of support for their teammates. Somewhere along the way

    • I don't disagree AT&T provided much valuable research to the US during its heyday. But curious, what would you expect phone rates (LD, cell and voip) rates to be without the breakup? I still remember tricks like let it ring twice and hangup to avoid the LD 3 minute minimum charge of a buck in the 70's. Breaking up AT&T ushered in the unbelievable concept of unlimited LD included that we all take for granted now. It is so ubiquitous, people often move without changing their number because of free LD.
  • by lionchild ( 581331 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:05AM (#60581168) Journal

    Does this mean we can soon expect the Government to follow suit with AMD, making them separate video from processor development/sales? What about Comcast/Verizon/Spectrum/AT&T's Triple-Play TV/Internet/Phone(and cellular) offerings, will those have to be broken up as well on the same grounds?

    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      I hope so but don't hold your breath. Many people in the tech industry have been calling for breakups of communications services for probably 20 years. That is part of why the FTC always reviews mergers and buyouts of the kinds of companies you listed. Overall, it is risky to the market and to speech to allow content creators and content delivery systems to be a single entity. It leads to all kinds of anti-competitive behavior.

    • Does this mean we can soon expect the Government to follow suit with AMD

      How so? In what way is AMD who are a minority in the CPU space, and a minority in the GPU space even remotely considered a monopoly or a company with too much market power.

      Maybe you should RTFS, they aren't going after "big tech". They are going after tech companies who have abused their market power. Not only has AMD demonstrated no abuse, they have demonstrated very little market power as well.

      Now ISPs, that would be a fun shitshow to take down.

      • I'm just citing an example, I didn't say I agreed with the idea. As far as I'm concerned, AMD should keep on doing business as-is. AMD is as anti-competitive as Apple is in this case. You're always welcome to go over to the other side of the street and buy Intel and get NVIDIA gear. AMD just offers some one-stop-shop options, and while they might all not be the top tier options, they aren't garbage either. In the same way you're always welcome to go over to the Android side of the street or engage with

  • "but it also might never get completed". This sounds like a shakedown to me. Typical sabre rattling from the government. Paradoxically, if any real legislation were to be passed it could end up being a barrier to any further competition. In which case the big tech companies, which are already in bed with the Democrats, will welcome it.

  • by slapyslapslap ( 995769 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:14AM (#60581222)
    "Big Tech" has been fully behind the Democrats. I wonder how much longer that will last.
    • They don't care one way or the other. Their singular objective is to do what's best for the bottom line. They read spreadsheets, not law books.

    • "Big Tech" has been fully behind the Democrats. I wonder how much longer that will last.

      Well democrats want to investigate them. Trump on the other hand depending on the phase of the moon swings between set the entire concept on fire, regulate, shutdown, sell off, or just plain complains that they should be illegal.

      I'm also willing to bet that very little will come out of the investigation into Apple and Facebook, and that what will come out of the investigation of Amazon and Google will result in little more than minor tweaks into how they do business.

      Quite a different story from Trump's desi

  • For example, in the book market you either publish on Amazon or not really much at all. Sure, there are other places you can sell a book at like Barns and Noble and independent websites, but Amazon is 90% of the market. Practically speaking, you either end up playing by their rules or not at all.
  • by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxrubyNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:23AM (#60581262)

    This will surely bring out the apologists who will say to start your own Google or Facebook. By way of example, Microsoft couldn't compete with Google in search and Google couldn't compete with Facebook in Social. Both started with billions of dollars in the bank and considerable resources for talent and professional expertise. The idea that the market can cure these monopolies is beyond parody. The only thing that is pragmatic is to start treating them as the monopolies that they are and formally treat them as utilities.

    These companies are so large that they literally consider themselves to be above nation states. They are presently abusing their power right now to interfere in the 2020 election. Do you want unelected bureaucrats picking the world's leaders? Just because they are trying to get rid of Trump this time, doesn't mean they will pick someone you like next time.

    The time tested solution for monopolies is to use RAND. RAND refers to Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory access for any and all customers on the same terms. RAND is also just about the most accepted precedent approved by the Supreme Court in US history (going back to the 1800's in dozens of cases). It has been used on everything from harbors to railroad terminals to microchips (RAMBUS is a famous example) and even Microsoft.

    It means everyone gets the same costs without different prices or kickbacks regardless of who they are. That means no more censorship of deals favoring one product over another, they must treat everyone the same. No more shadow banning, detuning, getting cancelled or other means of censorship of any kind. They would become similar to the post office or telcos in that matter.

    • Google couldn't compete with Facebook in Social. Both started with billions of dollars in the bank and considerable resources for talent and professional expertise.

      Large, lumbering companies are the wrong ones to look at to take down dominant players. Look to the upstarts. Instagram was beating FB in social (until their FTC-approved buyout). Snapchat, TikTok, Pinterest, Tinder, and others are all taking parts of the market. All of them are startups. Big Tech might have resources to launch new products, but in a time when VC funding is plentiful and compute resources are cheap, that doesn't really matter.

      • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        The real solution is to stop using centralized social networks, and go back to the original design of the internet where you publish your own content. I am long since sick of everybody choosing a platform and posting everything there, thus forcing everyone else to sign-up for an account at that place in order to communicate with you.

        • Lol, what now?

          Slashdot is my only "social media" account, and I'm doing just fine. If you feel some pressure to sign up for some internet shit, that's 100% on you.

      • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        Large, lumbering companies are the wrong ones to look at to take down dominant players. Look to the upstarts.

        Large lumbering companies take down dominant players by looking for the upstarts and buying them.

        While, on the other hand, dominant players take down upstarts by looking for them and buying them.

      • TikTok was backed by billions of dollars in funding from the Chinese government. Calling them a startup would be akin to calling Bing a startup when it was launched. Pinterest and Tinder and the others are gaining popularity, however none of them can be considered competitors for Big Tech. I'm reminded of when Zuckerberg was asked to name a single competitor for Facebook and couldn't do it.

        https://www.theverge.com/2018/... [theverge.com]

        The EU has also found them to have monopolies that are being abused and feels that the

    • You’re just attempting to twist the topic towards your anti-section 230 agenda. The problem with these companies isn’t that they run their platforms as they see fit (if you connect YOUR server to the internet, using YOUR hard-earned money, can I come along and post my opposing political viewpoints on your dime?), it’s that they stifle competition and gobble up upstart competitors.

      Now, the thing is, that’s how capitalism is designed to work. Anyone who has ever played the board game

      • The problem isn't that they run their companies as they see fit. The problem is that they abuse their monopoly. It's perfectly legal to have a monopoly so long as you don't abuse it. They abuse their monopoly by promoting their own products above others and shutting out any potential competition.

        The bigger issue is that they are also censoring political speech. The latter is a big deal when their interfering in political elections all over the world. They have been heavily influencing the 2020 election agai

    • By way of example, Microsoft couldn't compete with Google in search and Google couldn't compete with Facebook in Social.

      The inability to compete is not some magical sign. Honestly Google's offering was confusing as heck and offered no compelling reason for it to be adopted. Bing is ... well its results were as stupid as its name, it should be telling that it's the default search engine shipped with a fresh install of Windows and people still refuse to use it. Again that's not a sign of Google being some abusive anti-trust case.

      I still fondly remember my Myspace account. What a behemoth that was. A social network for the ages

      • Your point about the companies that they took down being ripe for disruption is one that we agree on. In some ways big tech today is also ripe for disruption. Unfortunately they are more entrenched today then the robber barons were back in the trust buster days. They are well past 50% market share and staying power that defines a monopoly per the FTC.

        The issue isn't moderation in and of itself. It's politically motivated moderation that's done by monopolies. It's akin to the post office of phone company in

    • No more shadow banning, detuning, getting cancelled or other means of censorship of any kind.

      So you're opposed to the First Amendment and free speech and free association, got it.

      • I am when it's done by monopolies abusing their monopolies to squelch the first amendment and free speech of the citizens instead of big tech. It's a false dichotomy to say that the rights of Big Tech outweigh the rights of hundreds of millions of American citizens. Not buying it.

        They blatantly abuse their monopolies to censor the political views of the plurality of Americans. They have done so to the point where we effectively have Chinese levels of censorship in the United States - complete with social cr

        • I am when it's done by monopolies abusing their monopolies to squelch the first amendment and free speech of the citizens instead of big tech. It's a false dichotomy

          It is a false dichotomy in that the abuse you're complaining of is simply not happening. And that even if the underlying action were being taken, it still wouldn't be an abuse.

          First, the abuse you claim exists is that various companies are trying to help the US government in censoring people. (Because First Amendment rights are only good against American governments) But that's clearly not happening.

          Second, the First Anendment rights of people (not just citizens; your bigotry is showing) are not affected by

  • Considering how ideologically aligned California's Big Tech and Democratic party, and considering donations and lobbyist, I don't see Democrats taking people's side on this issue.
  • by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:35AM (#60581314) Homepage

    This investigation is not new. It started 16 months ago, not long after the current House was seated.

    Like most investigations (not just legislative), it started with the conclusion that some crime MUST have happened, and investigators dug and dug until there was evidence to support that conclusion. Whether or not the evidence shows illegal activity or just unethical activity, we do not know yet. We might never know.

    Perhaps the most news-worthy part of this story is that both Democrats and Republicans dislike the same companies, but people treat their dislikes differently. Democrats are praised for standing up for the little guy when they talk of breaking up these companies, while Republicans are demons for wanting it.

  • by IHTFISP ( 859375 ) on Wednesday October 07, 2020 @10:50AM (#60581380)

    I'm surprised Microsoft failed to make the cut. Does that mean they are paying their Congressional protection money while the others are not?

    And what about eBay? They seem to be a dominant (sole?) player in the on-line auction area, now expanded into a resell marketplace to rival Cragslist et al.

    Why are some mega unicorns singled out while others are not? Could it be that those who also control media outlets are somehow exempt? Hmmm.

    • I'm surprised Microsoft failed to make the cut.

      For what? Note that TFS mentions specifics, they didn't just rattle off a list of tech companies.

      And what about eBay? They seem to be a dominant (sole?) player in the on-line auction area, now expanded into a resell marketplace to rival Cragslist et al.

      Holy shit ebay is an auction site? I don't think I've ever seen an auction on it. I thought it was an Amazon rival except smaller and with even more Chinese sellers.

      Seriously though, there's nothing illegal about being big or being the only game in town. Has ebay used it's incredible market influence to eliminate Craigslist through nefarious actions by actively preventing the competition? No? Didn't think so. By

  • All of these companies have significant competition. None of them are true monopolies. We don't need heavy handed government intervention.

    Bipartisan agreement is rare in the US government today, but in this case they can all agree that they have little control over the big tech firms and politicians don't like not controlling the message to the masses.

    In the case of Facebook, they want to shoot the messenger. Facebook's biggest issue is dealing with intractable freedom of speech issues and global at sca
    • All of these companies have significant competition. None of them are true monopolies.

      It's good that you stated you have no idea of anti-trust law in the opening two sentences by mentioning two things which are not at all even considered as part of an anti-trust case. For future reference:
      a) You just need to have market power, you do not need to be a monopoly, or even a part of an oligopoly.
      b) You just need to abuse that market power to the detriment of another player. Whether or not there is more competition in the market is completely irrelevant.

  • Localized monopolies, like lock-in, are still monopolies.

    It takes quite the moral contortions, to argue that it is "not" a monopoly because you still have a "choice". (Like the one to not have a smartphone. Very real-world that "choice"... /s)

  • What is a "government"? It's the thing that makes basic infrastructural decisions, not just roads, but including "cultural infrastructure", like what's tolerable misbehaviour or corruption, and what's intolerable and halted. It's Hobbes "Leviathan", that decisively settles all disputes.

    Explain to me how MAGAFTN (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix) are not the "government of the internet".

    I'm really discovering my inner conservative, hating Big Government. Well, unelected Big G

    • I don't know. Given how bad our current, elected big government is, maybe we should try an unelected one.

  • The Dems have decided that the "big tech giants" -- in other words platforms where the public can speak their mind -- are not censoring enough content in support of Democrats and their party line.

    It's a well-established result of optometry that politicians are exceedingly near-sighted and can rarely see beyond the tips of their own noses. The "big tech giants" and their de facto monopolies allow them the wherewithal to fund high risk innovation and research. That has been the pattern in America since fore

  • Hi..I was a really bad..girl. Punish me with your dick in my mouth!! >> https://is.gd/profile6251 [is.gd]
  • How about AT&T? Comcast? Charter? Disney? NBCUniversal?
  • I assume by "tackle" you mean "give a strong talking to, while looking very stern, indeed."

"Yes, and I feel bad about rendering their useless carci into dogfood..." -- Badger comics

Working...