Soros is the ideological enemy of the Bannon wing on the political spectrum and yet they both agree on regulating Big Tech. It's an exciting, and bipartisan, time for the antitrust movement.
This is surprising considering that Google and Facebook tend to support a lot of the Soros ideological agenda. Crazy and interesting times for sure...... but we definitely do need an anti-trust action to balance things out.
Read the class action lawsuit recently filed against Google by James Damore. That at least in part answers this question. Also check out Project Veritas.
> Read the class action lawsuit recently filed against Google.
Depending on your definition of “recently”, I can think of at least three, none of which seem on point (though the UK one about data collection might be arguably connectable to an argument about a need for anti-trust action.)
Well, you sepcified which lawsuit (and it was one of the three recent ones I had in mind), but not how it is in any way germane to a need for anti-trust action.
I actually wouldn't advocate for anti-trust action, I'm just pointing where there is perceived imbalance caused by the dominance these tech companies have.
> I actually wouldn't advocate for anti-trust action
You literally just did by using the case to answer a question about the need for anti-trust action.
> I'm just pointing where there is perceived imbalance caused by the dominance these tech companies have.
But the case doesn't support that; it supports (taking its allegations—many of which are diametrically opposed to those in the other recent employment discrimination class-action against Google—as true for the sake of argument) a claim of an imbalance within Google, but not the existence of an imbalance in society caused by Google (whether through its dominance in some areas or otherwise.)
The law isn't the only way to solve this problem. Just because I agree there is a problem doesn't mean I must support the blunt force of legislation to fix it.
It stands to reason that outward imbalance begins with inward imbalance and pointing to bias within the company culture is relevant when it comes to validating why there might be an outward imbalance in how their products are run.
Again, I'm responding to someone asking "what needs balance". If you don't agree with me it might be more useful to provide a more compelling opinion instead of picking my words apart.
With Google, for example, right now they have a pseudo monopoly in search with 80% world wide market share. With that kind of power, it is very easy to manipulate search results to control what people see which can have a profound affect on society, elections, etc..
While I agree that people are messy and do fight among themselves in political parties it was, to me, because they seemed like natural allies on the surface. Though from a pragmatic and cynical standpoint, giving the headwinds Google and Facebook are facing this might be more about distancing from companies that are no longer favored..... at some point this is bound to affect the stock prices that really seem to be over valued.
Maybe the employees of those companies lean liberal, but all the evidence is that the actual platforms were leveraged overwhelmingly to the benefit of the Trump wing in the last election.
So what's the real problem? That they have too much power? Or that wrong people made better use of the power?
If you take the position that this would all be OK if it had worked out for a Hillary win, then you have two problems:
1. Assuming that one side is always right is very dangerous - it blinds you to their flaws. One side is not composed of angels, and it does not have a divine right to be president.
2. Creating power that is fine "as long as the right people use the power" is extremely short-sited. The wrong people inevitably find ways to use the power.
It's interesting to try to imagine how a break-up like the Bell breakup would even function with Facebook or Google.
Unlike previous uses of Antitrust law, it's not really plausible to simply split along geographic boundaries, sorting a few shared assets into one company or another, since the whole point of these companies is irrelevance of geographic boundaries.
Similarly, splitting along product lines is particularly challenging in tech companies, where everything is extremely integrated -- nevermind that Facebook and Google each have essentially one profit center, in advertisements. You couldn't very well split Google Flights out into its own corp. Even if you did, the search corp would still dominate.
Even if the political will is summoned to apply Antitrust legislation to tech giants, I'm not sure what an enforcement would look like.
I think what this actually points to is that Antitrust isn't the right lever: the problem is lax regulation, lax enforcement of existing regulation, and bad policy around lobbying efforts.
Splitting up the companies, perhaps on product boundaries (say, for example, breaking out Google Maps in to a separate company, etc), could certainly help by reducing the concentration of power.
However, many of the most objectionable challenges posed by these companies -- challenges such as tracking, lack of privacy, putting people in to filter bubbles and otherwise manipulating what they see or how they see it -- are not really addressed merely by splitting them up.
Laws and regulatory structures have to go further to limit and channel their behavior.
If you split off Google Maps, then you split tracking of where I go apart from tracking of what I search for. That's not perfect, but it's not nothing.
It's only an exciting time if you're only into antitrust of the internet services industries. Other consolidated industries are ignored or encouraged by both parties.
"On Monday, November 13, 2017, Missouri’s attorney general, Josh Hawley, launched an investigation into Google’s handling of its consumer’s data, and whether it manipulated search results to favor its own products. The investigation will focus on three issues, according to Mr. Hawley:
Scope – the depth and breadth of Google’s data collection;
Abuse of market position; and
Use of competitor content as its own in search results
Some may argue that this move by Hawley is merely an attempt for free publicity ahead of his recently announced bid to challenge Democrat U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill for her Senate seat in 2018. Hawley, a Republican, drew immediate praise from Breitbart, the conservative website founded by former White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, following the announcement of the campaign."
"Gab, the free speech social network, has filed a lawsuit against Google after they were suspended without warning from Google’s Play Store last month."
Gab is the alt-right-friendly alternative to Twitter.
Surely we've seen enough to conclude that Steve Bannon is an entirely irrelevant political figure who was given a token-position in return for bringing Mercer's funding to the table, attempted to hitch himself to the Trump-train while declaring himself it's driver, bought-into his own gimmick a little too much and found himself on the wrong side of every battle since the sitting president took office.
There's no evidence to suggest that Steve Bannon's views are representative of the right in the United States, only evidence to refute it.
> "There could be an alliance between authoritarian states and these large, data-rich IT monopolies that would bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developed system of state-sponsored surveillance," he said. "This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined."
It's possible, but the big US companies seem to have good intent. I'd be more wary of big China tech for totalitarian control over information presented to users and their interaction with the tech systems.
Having multiple giants with competing interests might help to combat the risk that one of them turns to this.
Well, China already has pretty much the kind of collusion/cooperation being suggested there - you'd want to be more than wary if you were in the PRC. I am skeptical about the good intentions of US companies, but at least they tend to want to make money off you, not see you imprisoned.
I agree with you. I'm arguing that if Chinese companies are colluding with the PRC, then having other international companies that provide those services would provide options to choose ones that are not purposefully misleading their users. I think that customers have at least enough of a preference for transparency that if one option got too restrictive, they would switch to another global provider of such tech.
What if it happens without us knowing? As the Snowden revelations showed, tech companies are facing massive pressure to provide customer data without our knowledge. None of that has gone away.
I don't disagree with him, but the Soros-Murdoch media circus has only paved the way for them and has likely done more damage to the American "freedom of mind" to date. Faceboogle is just the new guard - better, faster, and stronger.
I'm not sure which is worse: unaccountable Big Tech or Big Tech 100% accountable to governments.
I'd be more sympathetic if it seemed he wanted Big Tech less powerful, instead of simply transferring control of that power to elected officials that are cheaper to buy than controlling interests in Big Tech companies.
This looks more like the old dance that has always been done in all industries. Rich and influencing people saying "we need to regulate the giants", so the legislators regulate the market and the giants don't have to face competition anymore but just give the lawyers a little more cash, maybe for some bribes too when things get a little too messy.
This tactics is as old as the laws, we should recognize it instantly.
He's proving just how slimy he really is. Facebook and Google are some of the few companies truly innovating and growing in the economy these days. The BANKS and PRIVATE EQUITY are the real menaces to society, rent seekers who take advantage of lobbying, bailouts, and interest free loans and other shenanigans from the Federal Reserve.
40 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 67.1 ms ] threadedit: made more specific.
Depending on your definition of “recently”, I can think of at least three, none of which seem on point (though the UK one about data collection might be arguably connectable to an argument about a need for anti-trust action.)
You literally just did by using the case to answer a question about the need for anti-trust action.
> I'm just pointing where there is perceived imbalance caused by the dominance these tech companies have.
But the case doesn't support that; it supports (taking its allegations—many of which are diametrically opposed to those in the other recent employment discrimination class-action against Google—as true for the sake of argument) a claim of an imbalance within Google, but not the existence of an imbalance in society caused by Google (whether through its dominance in some areas or otherwise.)
It stands to reason that outward imbalance begins with inward imbalance and pointing to bias within the company culture is relevant when it comes to validating why there might be an outward imbalance in how their products are run.
Again, I'm responding to someone asking "what needs balance". If you don't agree with me it might be more useful to provide a more compelling opinion instead of picking my words apart.
It's not really surprising when you recognize that not everyone to the left of the US Republican Party is part of a homogenous, unified faction.
If you take the position that this would all be OK if it had worked out for a Hillary win, then you have two problems:
1. Assuming that one side is always right is very dangerous - it blinds you to their flaws. One side is not composed of angels, and it does not have a divine right to be president.
2. Creating power that is fine "as long as the right people use the power" is extremely short-sited. The wrong people inevitably find ways to use the power.
Unlike previous uses of Antitrust law, it's not really plausible to simply split along geographic boundaries, sorting a few shared assets into one company or another, since the whole point of these companies is irrelevance of geographic boundaries.
Similarly, splitting along product lines is particularly challenging in tech companies, where everything is extremely integrated -- nevermind that Facebook and Google each have essentially one profit center, in advertisements. You couldn't very well split Google Flights out into its own corp. Even if you did, the search corp would still dominate.
Even if the political will is summoned to apply Antitrust legislation to tech giants, I'm not sure what an enforcement would look like.
I think what this actually points to is that Antitrust isn't the right lever: the problem is lax regulation, lax enforcement of existing regulation, and bad policy around lobbying efforts.
However, many of the most objectionable challenges posed by these companies -- challenges such as tracking, lack of privacy, putting people in to filter bubbles and otherwise manipulating what they see or how they see it -- are not really addressed merely by splitting them up.
Laws and regulatory structures have to go further to limit and channel their behavior.
https://polispandit.com/2017/11/15/antitrust-and-big-tech/
"On Monday, November 13, 2017, Missouri’s attorney general, Josh Hawley, launched an investigation into Google’s handling of its consumer’s data, and whether it manipulated search results to favor its own products. The investigation will focus on three issues, according to Mr. Hawley:
Some may argue that this move by Hawley is merely an attempt for free publicity ahead of his recently announced bid to challenge Democrat U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill for her Senate seat in 2018. Hawley, a Republican, drew immediate praise from Breitbart, the conservative website founded by former White House Strategist, Steve Bannon, following the announcement of the campaign."http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social-...
"Gab, the free speech social network, has filed a lawsuit against Google after they were suspended without warning from Google’s Play Store last month."
Gab is the alt-right-friendly alternative to Twitter.
There's no evidence to suggest that Steve Bannon's views are representative of the right in the United States, only evidence to refute it.
> "There could be an alliance between authoritarian states and these large, data-rich IT monopolies that would bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developed system of state-sponsored surveillance," he said. "This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined."
It's possible, but the big US companies seem to have good intent. I'd be more wary of big China tech for totalitarian control over information presented to users and their interaction with the tech systems.
Having multiple giants with competing interests might help to combat the risk that one of them turns to this.
I'd be more sympathetic if it seemed he wanted Big Tech less powerful, instead of simply transferring control of that power to elected officials that are cheaper to buy than controlling interests in Big Tech companies.
This tactics is as old as the laws, we should recognize it instantly.
I know everyone who reports for a Rupert Murdock or Mercer family property seems to hate Soros. That's a bit fishy.
And the people who hate him the most are also some of the worst wingnuts on the internet: Alex Jones, Daily Stormer, David Duke.