6 ms·

Why did you put 'anti-trust' in quotes?

TomMckenny 7y ago
Perhaps because if it were really a tech anti-trust summit, ISPs would be the chief topic. Or at least discussed somewhere. So a better description is tech contribution shake down.
- writepub 7y ago
  Just incidental that an overwhelming majority of tech giants' employees pledge allegiance to the left, while having unregulated, monopoly control over information dissemination? When was the last time an ISP de-platformed someone for their politics?
  - bdhe 7y ago
    It's a deeply disappointing realization that to a lot of people, basic human decency, integrity in disseminating truth, and a consistent view of facts has become a partisan issue because of the Republican party.
    - sgnelson 7y ago
      Or the fact that what was once a cornerstone of American Conservatism has now disappeared entirely, the free market economy. "I can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, I need government intervention, subsidies, import tariffs to break up those big bad 'leftist' companies, I'm not smart/strong/good enough to do it myself." Reagan is spinning in his grave.
      - TomMckenny 7y ago
        They managed the amazing feat of being both anti-free market and anti-social-safety at the same time. Perhaps a big-tent pro-democracy, pro-rule of law party will emerge as a counter weight somehow.
        18pfsmt 7y ago
        The amount of illiberal ideas coming out of many people scares the shit out of me. Banning anything is not liberal, it's authoritarian.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't take HN threads further into partisan flamewar. Also, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. Important though those issues are, we ban accounts that do that on HN, because it's not what this site is for and destroys the curiosity that it is for. If you would review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd be grateful.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    So yes, the "anti-trust" talk is politically motivated? And proudly so because the employees have "pledged allegiance to the left"? Strangely, there seems to be a very large number of people who decry google's information "monopoly" because of the blogs and youtube(!) videos they found while googling. A group that, given their power in government, is certainly not being oppressed. And as a side note, I use no Alphabet product and obviously run an ad blocker. You'll find there are a great many technologists that do so. So, while there are certainly issues, the monopoly talk is obviously intentional hyperbole promulgated for political reasons. As compared to, say ISPs which actually are monopolies. Or even Sinclair broadcasting which actually does control all media in some regions. But those genuine monopolies are not objectionable because they align politically with the party in power. This pattern does correspond with some political systems but certainly not democratic, rule-of-law forms.
  - krp72yhj 7y ago
    The alt right isn’t being deplatformed because of their politics, so much as because they are trolls. Triggering the libs necessarily antagonizes a significant portion of the user base, which tarnishes the brand and subtracts value. Note that a mirror image of these types exist on the left, and they also tend to be despised. Again it’s not about the politics. It’s about being an unpleasant person.
  - 18pfsmt 7y ago
    Who is "pledging allegiance" and where are these pledges?
- nopriorarrests 7y ago
  I do remember these 600-comments threads regarding net neutrality and how it will be the end of the world once repealed because evil ISP will charge folks for each bit. 2 years ago net neutrality was repealed. 1. Has anything changed to the worse, consumer-wise? 2. Was there any postmortem acknowledging the fact that the end of net neutrality, unlike predicted, isn't the end of the world?
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    Many groups, including the EFF, engaged in fear-mongering claiming the most important reason for Net Neutrality was to prevent ISPs from de-platforming and censoring free speech. It turns out the ISPs never engaged in that kind of activity, and instead the organizations that increasingly engage in and rationalize such infringements are the ones that lobbied for NN. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-... Relatedly, ever since the repeal of NN, internet speeds are up and prices are staying flat. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/average-internet-speed-up-one-year-after-net-neutrality-repeal https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/average-internet-spe...
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      The monopolies' _claim_ of benevolence is irrelevant. Nor does it mater what anonymous voices on HN said. I at least have the limited option of using Bing and DuckDuckGo for search. But I have no choice for ISPs. Demanding a free market in America did not use to be controversial. But for two years now, under a sea of double think, it's just used as cover for political cronyism and contribution shakedowns.
      - 18pfsmt 7y ago
        It is the regulations themselves, not the lack of them, that have allowed for these de facto monopolies to form. These have been at the local level, where practical considerations were relevant (my local company often has a cable mess going on 30ft up these poles), but they went overboard. Should a given city allow 30 companies to string cable across their poles? I think it is up to the city, but if they make a mistake it shouldn't be the company that is punished. Local governments often disrupt free enterprise with their regulations for a reason, but when they get things wrong we should acknowledge that.
dboreham 7y ago
Instead of "White House"?

Perhaps because if it were really a tech anti-trust summit, ISPs would be the chief topic. Or at least discussed somewhere. So a better description is tech contribution shake down.

writepub 7y ago
Just incidental that an overwhelming majority of tech giants' employees pledge allegiance to the left, while having unregulated, monopoly control over information dissemination? When was the last time an ISP de-platformed someone for their politics?
- bdhe 7y ago
  It's a deeply disappointing realization that to a lot of people, basic human decency, integrity in disseminating truth, and a consistent view of facts has become a partisan issue because of the Republican party.
  - sgnelson 7y ago
    Or the fact that what was once a cornerstone of American Conservatism has now disappeared entirely, the free market economy. "I can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, I need government intervention, subsidies, import tariffs to break up those big bad 'leftist' companies, I'm not smart/strong/good enough to do it myself." Reagan is spinning in his grave.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      They managed the amazing feat of being both anti-free market and anti-social-safety at the same time. Perhaps a big-tent pro-democracy, pro-rule of law party will emerge as a counter weight somehow.
      - 18pfsmt 7y ago
        The amount of illiberal ideas coming out of many people scares the shit out of me. Banning anything is not liberal, it's authoritarian.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into partisan flamewar. Also, it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. Important though those issues are, we ban accounts that do that on HN, because it's not what this site is for and destroys the curiosity that it is for. If you would review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended, we'd be grateful.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  So yes, the "anti-trust" talk is politically motivated? And proudly so because the employees have "pledged allegiance to the left"? Strangely, there seems to be a very large number of people who decry google's information "monopoly" because of the blogs and youtube(!) videos they found while googling. A group that, given their power in government, is certainly not being oppressed. And as a side note, I use no Alphabet product and obviously run an ad blocker. You'll find there are a great many technologists that do so. So, while there are certainly issues, the monopoly talk is obviously intentional hyperbole promulgated for political reasons. As compared to, say ISPs which actually are monopolies. Or even Sinclair broadcasting which actually does control all media in some regions. But those genuine monopolies are not objectionable because they align politically with the party in power. This pattern does correspond with some political systems but certainly not democratic, rule-of-law forms.
- krp72yhj 7y ago
  The alt right isn’t being deplatformed because of their politics, so much as because they are trolls. Triggering the libs necessarily antagonizes a significant portion of the user base, which tarnishes the brand and subtracts value. Note that a mirror image of these types exist on the left, and they also tend to be despised. Again it’s not about the politics. It’s about being an unpleasant person.
- 18pfsmt 7y ago
  Who is "pledging allegiance" and where are these pledges?
nopriorarrests 7y ago
I do remember these 600-comments threads regarding net neutrality and how it will be the end of the world once repealed because evil ISP will charge folks for each bit. 2 years ago net neutrality was repealed. 1. Has anything changed to the worse, consumer-wise? 2. Was there any postmortem acknowledging the fact that the end of net neutrality, unlike predicted, isn't the end of the world?
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Many groups, including the EFF, engaged in fear-mongering claiming the most important reason for Net Neutrality was to prevent ISPs from de-platforming and censoring free speech. It turns out the ISPs never engaged in that kind of activity, and instead the organizations that increasingly engage in and rationalize such infringements are the ones that lobbied for NN. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-attack-free-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-... Relatedly, ever since the repeal of NN, internet speeds are up and prices are staying flat. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/average-internet-speed-up-one-year-after-net-neutrality-repeal https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/average-internet-spe...
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    The monopolies' _claim_ of benevolence is irrelevant. Nor does it mater what anonymous voices on HN said. I at least have the limited option of using Bing and DuckDuckGo for search. But I have no choice for ISPs. Demanding a free market in America did not use to be controversial. But for two years now, under a sea of double think, it's just used as cover for political cronyism and contribution shakedowns.
    - 18pfsmt 7y ago
      It is the regulations themselves, not the lack of them, that have allowed for these de facto monopolies to form. These have been at the local level, where practical considerations were relevant (my local company often has a cable mess going on 30ft up these poles), but they went overboard. Should a given city allow 30 companies to string cable across their poles? I think it is up to the city, but if they make a mistake it shouldn't be the company that is punished. Local governments often disrupt free enterprise with their regulations for a reason, but when they get things wrong we should acknowledge that.

dboreham 7y ago

Instead of "White House"?