3 ms·
That’s kind of a weird false dichotomy and the answer is “it depends”
by austenallred 9y ago
That’s kind of a weird false dichotomy and the answer is “it depends”
- scarface74 9y agoNot really, once you get the government involved in capitalism, even if it is well meaning, there are always unintended consequences. But in the real world, would Obama regulate tech companies? Would Trump regulate banks?
- fjsolwmv 9y agoRead up on how antitrust law and labor law came into existence . The unfettered capitalism you love is actually quite fettered, and many people died for that right.
- scarface74 9y agoTechnology moves much faster than regulation. It wasn't the slap on the wrist that MS received that brought down its influence - it was Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Especially Apple and Google that made PCs less relevant to most users and developers. In 2016, the government was in the process of forcing cable companies to allow third party set top boxes. The cable companies fought back, the government dropped the pursuit and guess what? Technology made the need much less relevant. https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-top-box-dead-ajit-pai https://www.recode.net/2017/1/31/14453444/fcc-tv-open-set-to... Now even though the cable company "won" they loss anyway. They are still losing cable subscribers and companies like DirecTV and Sling came along. I pay $35 a month for DirecTVNow, get all of the cable channels I care about and in my local market, get all of the OTA channels (NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, and the CW). While the government was fighting the last war - cable set top boxes - the industry had moved on to creating services that let you watch live TV anywhere - on your phone, tablet, internet connected set top boxes, game consoles etc. While the government was worried about MS unbeatable dominance on the desktop, during the next 10 years, the battle had moved to mobile.