7 ms·

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, ti

by IBM 9y ago

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.

lgleason 9y ago
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.
- bentruyman 9y ago
  To balance what out, exactly?
  - sintaxi 9y ago
    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. edit: made more specific.
    - ravitation 9y ago
      For those reading, be aware of the hilarious bias of Project Veritas...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > 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.)
      - sintaxi 9y ago
        Thanks for pointing that out. Updated the post to be more specific.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        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.
        sintaxi 9y ago
        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.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > 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.)
        bentruyman 9y ago
        Yeah, I don’t think Damore has anything to do with the topic of the wider thread, or anti-trust for that matter.
        sintaxi 9y ago
        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.
  - lgleason 9y ago
    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..
    - bentruyman 9y ago
      And “anti-trust action” fixes this how? We’re going to start having government come in and tell Google what is acceptable content?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > This is surprising considering that Google and Facebook tend to support a lot of the Soros ideological agenda. 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.
  - lgleason 9y ago
    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.
- liberte82 9y ago
  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.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    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.
burke 9y ago
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.
- basch 9y ago
  http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  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.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    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.
guelo 9y ago
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.
- prepend 9y ago
  Didn’t the Time Warner merger get partially blocked?
cjcole 9y ago
This is what a political realignment in progress looks like. https://polispandit.com/2017/11/15/antitrust-and-big-tech/ 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: 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." http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social-network-gab-files-lawsuit-google/ 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.
KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
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.

by IBM 9y ago

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.

lgleason 9y ago

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.

bentruyman 9y ago
To balance what out, exactly?
- sintaxi 9y ago
  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. edit: made more specific.
  - ravitation 9y ago
    For those reading, be aware of the hilarious bias of Project Veritas...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > 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.)
    - sintaxi 9y ago
      Thanks for pointing that out. Updated the post to be more specific.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        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.
        sintaxi 9y ago
        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.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > 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.)
        bentruyman 9y ago
        Yeah, I don’t think Damore has anything to do with the topic of the wider thread, or anti-trust for that matter.
        sintaxi 9y ago
        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.
- lgleason 9y ago
  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..
  - bentruyman 9y ago
    And “anti-trust action” fixes this how? We’re going to start having government come in and tell Google what is acceptable content?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> This is surprising considering that Google and Facebook tend to support a lot of the Soros ideological agenda. 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.
- lgleason 9y ago
  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.
liberte82 9y ago
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.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  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.

burke 9y ago

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.

basch 9y ago
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox http://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox
pmoriarty 9y ago
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.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  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.

guelo 9y ago

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.

prepend 9y ago
Didn’t the Time Warner merger get partially blocked?

cjcole 9y ago

This is what a political realignment in progress looks like. https://polispandit.com/2017/11/15/antitrust-and-big-tech/ 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: 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." http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social-network-gab-files-lawsuit-google/ 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.

KhanMahGretsch 9y ago

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.