|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
110%er [5676]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12157
Joined: 9/28/08
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: This is why big tech must be broken up
Dec 16, 2020, 9:16 AM
|
|
For the record, I am all for doing something about Alphabet, Facebook, Amazon, etc. However I don't see how you can just break up a Youtube for example into several different services. I also worry you'd just end up with a repeat of Ma Bell where you break them up only for them to consolidate again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42154]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38239
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If Big Tech is to be broken up...
Dec 16, 2020, 9:19 AM
|
|
It should be due to their business practices to crush competition, similar to AT&T back in the day, not because you don't like the content.
You have a choice not to use YouTube.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155906]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65821
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Honestly not sure about constitutionality of it,
Dec 16, 2020, 10:09 AM
|
|
haven't dug into it much, but it "feels" like breakup over extreme privacy concerns should be a fair cop as well, but I could be off-base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Agree. Dont know what the legal arguments would be,
Dec 16, 2020, 10:15 AM
|
|
but my understanding is that congress has broad latitude here. What latitude they dont have they need to create. IMO, the oligarchs have to go,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Agree. Dont know what the legal arguments would be,
Dec 16, 2020, 11:19 AM
|
|
I am for doing away with the oligarchy, but I think it will take a far more extensive effort than this article suggests.
The first step will have to be getting huge amounts of money out of politics or whatever Congress passes will be meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Honestly not sure about constitutionality of it,
Dec 16, 2020, 10:18 AM
[ in reply to Honestly not sure about constitutionality of it, ] |
|
Personally, I believe our government is just as guilty as crushing competition as is Google, etc.
Whatever congress does, we will be right there again in a decade or so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42154]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38239
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155906]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65821
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Well, payday lending users submit to it as well,
Dec 16, 2020, 11:15 AM
|
|
but you can't do it in more states than you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: I can see that.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:28 AM
[ in reply to I can see that. ] |
|
Over 70% of internet traffic goes through websites controlled by fb or Google.
Not much choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
There are anti-trust laws on the books.
Dec 16, 2020, 10:37 AM
[ in reply to Honestly not sure about constitutionality of it, ] |
|
I'm not sure if the government can regulate social media without classifying them as a common carrier, which is what the FCC briefly did with telecoms to protect net neutrality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Agree 100%, but not only due to 1984-ish control of
Dec 16, 2020, 10:02 AM
|
|
thought, though there is certainly that. IMO, one cant be indignant about "wealth inequity" without being equally angry at the oligarchy we have allowed to develop. The ATT breakup brought an economic and technological revolution, and imo it could happen again with media, tech and banking. Then make sure it doesn't happen again.
If you want conspiracy theories, consider why it is that such a populist issue waiting to be taken is left lying on the table. From AOC on one hand to Marco Rubio on the other, emerging politicians are just letting it sit there. I think a lot of money changed hands to get us to this point, and a lot of power wants to keep it this way.
That, or its easier to just blame it on rich people bang the table for more taxes on them, as if it was taxes that created this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
This reminds me of the net neutrality debate in 2014.
Dec 16, 2020, 10:35 AM
|
|
Except back then conservatives were vehemently opposed to a "government takeover of the internet." I'm fine with the hypocrisy as long as we're all on the same page now and it's nice to see conservatives concerned about corporate authoritarians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Which strawman do you have in mind.? This is
Dec 16, 2020, 11:27 AM
|
|
me you're talking to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Was NOT trying to strawman your argument.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:39 AM
|
|
Was more of a threadjack.
And I agree with you that it's a missed opportunity for bipartisan legislation. I'd like to see Congress roll out an update to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to address net neutrality, which would include social media. Classify ISPs, Twitter, FB, etc. as common carriers giving the FCC regulatory oversight to enforce net neutrality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
The more I read about net neutrality the less I knew, so
Dec 16, 2020, 11:59 AM
|
|
I'll leave that alone.
It's been years now, so I can't remember all the details, but I read a long article - a short book, really - about the history of anti trust legislation and enforcement, and part of it dealt with the politics involved. Long story short, the last lion of anti trust was a democrat senator who died in, I think, the 70's. From then on, congress has basically never met a merger it didn't like, whoever had the majority, which was an about face from the previous 50 years.
The more I look at how the economy works now vs the 70's, which for sure is not a long time, and the way partisan politics creates tangent issues around economics - we blame anything and everything on the cause of the day: racism, sexism, tax inequity, etc - the more it seems to me that the main issue is right there, the shift from a free market to an oligarchy in our largest industries.
I'm not saying social issues are not very important. Make them as important as you want. I'm just proposing that those are issues in themselves, and are not the cause of wealth inequity, bubbles, alleged pay gaps, etc.
We have an oligarchy on one hand, and $27 Trillion in debt on the other (that's pushing half a Mil per family). One creates a top down economy and the other devalues the currency. If you want to shift all the wealth from the middle to the top, that'll do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: This reminds me of the net neutrality debate in 2014.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:29 AM
[ in reply to This reminds me of the net neutrality debate in 2014. ] |
|
I'm still waiting on the death of the internet. People even here claimed the internet would die without net neutrality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Now that's a strawman.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:48 AM
|
|
I'm sure there were some outliers who said it'd be the death of the internet, but most net neutrality proponents weren't so hyperbolic. To me it's like a seatbelt: Just because you haven't crashed yet doesn't prove that you don't need it. And ISPs have throttled torrents and Netflix in the past, so there's no reason to think they won't do it again. Lastly, it's kind of weird that they fought tooth and nail against regulations that prevented them from doing something they swore they weren't going to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Now that's a strawman.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:54 AM
|
|
Agreed.
I was being sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Now that's a strawman.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:55 AM
[ in reply to Now that's a strawman. ] |
|
Although, personally I think big tech is a bigger problem than net neutrality.
Jmho
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: This reminds me of the net neutrality debate in 2014.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:29 AM
[ in reply to This reminds me of the net neutrality debate in 2014. ] |
|
I'm still waiting on the death of the internet. People even here claimed the internet would die without net neutrality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42154]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38239
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Agree 100%, but not only due to 1984-ish control of
Dec 16, 2020, 10:43 AM
[ in reply to Agree 100%, but not only due to 1984-ish control of ] |
|
That's the 2nd time you've compared the social media/tech companies to 1984ish control of thought, but there is nothing in that book that compares to them.
The government monitors people and oppresses their control of thought in 1984, not independent tech companies. I can still post political opinions on Facebook (or here, for that matter), and Facebook police or Google police aren't going to drag me off to the Ministry of Love to torture me with a rat face cage.
People willingly subject themselves to privacy intrusion of these companies and are subject to their terms of posting guidelines. Citizens of Oceania are all required to be subjected to the government oppression.
So no, this isn't comparable to that novel. But plenty of policies put forth by the Bush, Obama, and Trump admins and the respective Congresses have flirted with these ideas, starting with the Patriot Act.
Which... didn't you back that? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Was listening to Eric Weinstein's podcast yesterday.
Dec 16, 2020, 10:51 AM
|
|
Do not recommend, btw. Anyway he was comparing getting banned on Twitter to being dragged off to the gulag. People need to learn how to have discussions without becoming Captain Hyperbole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42154]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38239
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Incredible, isn't it?
Dec 16, 2020, 11:01 AM
|
|
That they somehow draw a comparison to a private corporation using it's First Amendment right to dictate content with oppressive dictator-led regimes (or novels that create the most extreme of distopias)?
Folks, those examples involve government oppression. All these social media companies are not the government. The fact that they can do what they do indicates pure, unbridled freedom.
Also, when you press these folks on what they want the companies to stop censoring, it usually boils down to some really despicable speech that is somehow getting labeled as "conservative thought".
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
There are some Big Brother qualities in big tech.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:23 AM
|
|
And big business in general. We voluntarily plant listening devices in our homes, which is pretty creepy, and when telecoms have a monopoly you don't have any control and little recourse as a consumer. But that's a lot different than jack-booted thugs and forced labor camps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12897
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: There are some Big Brother qualities in big tech.
Dec 16, 2020, 11:32 AM
|
|
Agreed.
Wonder what people will do when they realize the smart tv, the amazon speakers, etc are listening in. ??
But, we love the convenience of all of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Incredible, isn't it?
Dec 16, 2020, 11:26 AM
[ in reply to Incredible, isn't it? ] |
|
I just want to add that the amount of misinformation that is being distributed to a significant portion of the American population is a threat to our ability to self-govern.
I am NOT for censorship. And I do NOT have a plan for how to limit this disinformation, but I DO worry about what happens to our society if we can not even agree on what our basic reality is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17285]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14229
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Free enterprise, capitalism, small government, no regulation***
Dec 16, 2020, 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49043]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38812
Joined: 12/31/97
|
Heh...
Dec 16, 2020, 12:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Message was edited by: FordPrefect®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
LOL. It does work that way.
Dec 16, 2020, 12:22 PM
|
|
The only defense I would make of those who distrust govt on one hand and trust Google on the other ...
I got nothing.
Well maybe. The use of passwords, individual accounts, etc does give the illusion of control by the individual. Intuitively one thinks, "This is my data in my account, accessible by my password." Why do people not know that they don't own that data at all? I don't know.
Invisibility is part of it. Media talks about govt all the time, so we see it, but hardly ever mentions data: they are the ones who own it. If one's favorite opinionator - Carlson or Cuomo - spent 8 hours every week saying, "Everything you just typed or read was examined by somebody this week, and was then sold to a dozen other people who also looked at it, and there are as many reasons for looking at it as there are people to look at it. And yes, I mean everything" ... If we heard that every week, people might think differently.
The people who have all our data and history are the ones happiest to see that stay quiet, and they are the ones determining what we see and hear. Is that about right, or am I going tin foil hat on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49043]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38812
Joined: 12/31/97
|
I agree completely, but I don't think I know a single person
Dec 16, 2020, 12:28 PM
|
|
with a smart phone who hasn't noticed how often facebook or Google shows them an ad for something they were just talking about. And sometimes something you were only thinking about. Which has to be based on some kind of location service that notes a billboard you just saw or a business or something.
I remember two years ago, maybe three or four actually, listening to one of the designers of facebooks algorithms talking about how accurate they were at guessing age, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc. It literally records things that you type but don't send and how long you linger over posts that you otherwise don't interact with. It's constantly building a profile of who you are. And that's just Facebook.
I think we crossed a point where those that still use those platforms have realized what it's doing but don't want to let go of the convenience that comes with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34486]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13513
Joined: 8/30/19
|
Re: This is why big tech must be broken up
Dec 16, 2020, 12:11 PM
|
|
CHILLING
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
