5 ms·

Let's break up the big Tech giants, but leave Big Banking and Big Pharma alone (for example)? How come Comcast gets to operate as an ISP and Telecom and suppres

Let's break up the big Tech giants, but leave Big Banking and Big Pharma alone (for example)? How come Comcast gets to operate as an ISP and Telecom and suppress competition, but Google, Amazon, and Facebook are illegal monopolies that need to allegedly be broken up by Government? It reeks of targeting.

supercanuck 7y ago
What value is Facebook bringing to the world, honestly? Isn’t it just a skinner box that they’ve attached ads to?
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  ...and this is justification for the government to break up the company, is that the claim being made here?
  - supercanuck 7y ago
    We the people have the ability to break up a company. The company serves the people. This is why we elect other people to represent our interests. What value does a virtual skinner box serve? I think at one point Facebook did have value, then it changed
    - oarabbus_ 7y ago
      You seem to be advocating for increased government interference in the private sector, because a company doesn't "provide value". Who gets to decide which companies are "valuable" and which are "worthless" and to be broken up by government? Your line of thought is utterly terrifying to me, quite frankly.
      - supercanuck 7y ago
        THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. The people, through, free and fair elections can fix market failures
        oarabbus_ 7y ago
        But the people of the United States don't agree that any of these tech giants should be broken up.
        supercanuck 7y ago
        Thats why we vote.
        pwinnski 7y ago
        That remains to be seen, perhaps as a part of the 2020 election.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        To be fair, governments are the ones that define and allow the existence of corporations. Corporations only exist because of "government interference". It used to be a hard requirement that as part of the grant of corporate status, the corporation had to operate in way that served the greater societal good -- and those that didn't had their corporate charter removed. That's not done so much anymore, and in my opinion that's a bad thing. So, this isn't increased government interference -- it's a government thing in the first place.
      - codemac 7y ago
        The history of corporations were one wher we started by evaluating if the completed work of the corporation would help society. The government would have to explicitly charter them as a single individual in the eyes of the law. All other professions were treated as groups of individuals. The idea that they are some inalienable right for people to receive limited liability and tax breaks is confusing, historically inaccurate, and largely made up in the last few decades. You are more then welcome to act as an individual without incorporation, regardless of what value you provide. Receiving a charter from the government to act as a larger entity in society is exactly something we should be deciding about.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cjhopman 7y ago
  It's an incredibly arrogant position to believe that you can better evaluate how much value someone receives from some activity than they can.
cujo 7y ago
Are you trolling? Her agenda is going after essentially "too big" everything. Banking and pharma have been on her list longer than big tech.
- shaneprrlt 7y ago
  Her next target: Jupiter.
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    Is the implication that trying to break up these companies is an unrealistic goal?
    - shaneprrlt 7y ago
      No, the implication is that Jupiter is big and OP said she doesn't like big things.
      - happytoexplain 7y ago
        Sorry, I honestly can't tell if you're being cagey or if your point is going over my head.
        shaneprrlt 7y ago
        I'm literally just making a stupid joke. The curtains are just blue.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  Let's try to engage rationally instead of baseless "are you trolling" attacks. https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
  - cjarrett 7y ago
js2 7y ago
Re banking: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/wall-street https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/wall-street https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/holding-wall-street-accountable https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/holding-wall-street-accoun... Re ISPs: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural (See "A Public Option for Broadband")
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  Thanks for these. I read the banking one, she's advocating for tougher legislation, greater separation of investment and commercial banking, etc. These are all great ideas. I don't think many reasonable people don't think Facebook, Google, Amazon etc should not be more _regulated_. Yes, let's increase data privacy laws, close tax loopholes, make sure these Tech giants are paying their fair share in taxes, etc. I think the links prove my statement, that she's talking about regulating Banking and Pharma, but she's talking about _breaking up_ Tech giants; therein lies the problem.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Banking already has separations in the Volcker rule (And Dodd-Frank overall, which have been loosened under the current administration), and arguably has already been broken up along the lines Warren is proposing.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Massive pools of data, especially about people, being all of 1) hugely valuable to AI, 2) very, very hard to bootstrap without massive amounts of money (so, a strong moat to competition), and 3) basically the Stasi on steroids but oh don't worry it's fine because it's for profit this time, is the main reason I'd like to see at least Facebook and Google take a huge hit. As in I'd like that part of their value to be regulated out of existence entirely, because I think it's awful at best and incredibly dangerous at worst.
save_ferris 7y ago
She founded the CFPB, one of the most effective agencies in combating financial wrongdoing, and has a platform for dealing with banking and pharma. One headline does not a campaign platform make.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oneepic 7y ago
This might be worth mentioning: American political-sci textbooks point out that US Presidents have historically been more productive by focusing on fewer initiatives during their tenure in office. So, if Warren were to actually become President and focus on just big tech alone, it would likely be a lot more successful than trying to go after big-everything, or big-<a few other things>. That said, this idea only applies to their time in office, not their campaign (I'm sure lots of voters want to see a crackdown on many big businesses other than tech). But it still influences things.

supercanuck 7y ago

What value is Facebook bringing to the world, honestly? Isn’t it just a skinner box that they’ve attached ads to?

oarabbus_ 7y ago
...and this is justification for the government to break up the company, is that the claim being made here?
- supercanuck 7y ago
  We the people have the ability to break up a company. The company serves the people. This is why we elect other people to represent our interests. What value does a virtual skinner box serve? I think at one point Facebook did have value, then it changed
  - oarabbus_ 7y ago
    You seem to be advocating for increased government interference in the private sector, because a company doesn't "provide value". Who gets to decide which companies are "valuable" and which are "worthless" and to be broken up by government? Your line of thought is utterly terrifying to me, quite frankly.
    - supercanuck 7y ago
      THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. The people, through, free and fair elections can fix market failures
      - oarabbus_ 7y ago
        But the people of the United States don't agree that any of these tech giants should be broken up.
        supercanuck 7y ago
        Thats why we vote.
        pwinnski 7y ago
        That remains to be seen, perhaps as a part of the 2020 election.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      To be fair, governments are the ones that define and allow the existence of corporations. Corporations only exist because of "government interference". It used to be a hard requirement that as part of the grant of corporate status, the corporation had to operate in way that served the greater societal good -- and those that didn't had their corporate charter removed. That's not done so much anymore, and in my opinion that's a bad thing. So, this isn't increased government interference -- it's a government thing in the first place.
    - codemac 7y ago
      The history of corporations were one wher we started by evaluating if the completed work of the corporation would help society. The government would have to explicitly charter them as a single individual in the eyes of the law. All other professions were treated as groups of individuals. The idea that they are some inalienable right for people to receive limited liability and tax breaks is confusing, historically inaccurate, and largely made up in the last few decades. You are more then welcome to act as an individual without incorporation, regardless of what value you provide. Receiving a charter from the government to act as a larger entity in society is exactly something we should be deciding about.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cjhopman 7y ago
It's an incredibly arrogant position to believe that you can better evaluate how much value someone receives from some activity than they can.

cujo 7y ago

Are you trolling? Her agenda is going after essentially "too big" everything. Banking and pharma have been on her list longer than big tech.

shaneprrlt 7y ago
Her next target: Jupiter.
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  Is the implication that trying to break up these companies is an unrealistic goal?
  - shaneprrlt 7y ago
    No, the implication is that Jupiter is big and OP said she doesn't like big things.
    - happytoexplain 7y ago
      Sorry, I honestly can't tell if you're being cagey or if your point is going over my head.
      - shaneprrlt 7y ago
        I'm literally just making a stupid joke. The curtains are just blue.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
Let's try to engage rationally instead of baseless "are you trolling" attacks. https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
- cjarrett 7y ago

js2 7y ago

Re banking: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/wall-street https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/wall-street https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/holding-wall-street-accountable https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/holding-wall-street-accoun... Re ISPs: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural (See "A Public Option for Broadband")

oarabbus_ 7y ago
Thanks for these. I read the banking one, she's advocating for tougher legislation, greater separation of investment and commercial banking, etc. These are all great ideas. I don't think many reasonable people don't think Facebook, Google, Amazon etc should not be more _regulated_. Yes, let's increase data privacy laws, close tax loopholes, make sure these Tech giants are paying their fair share in taxes, etc. I think the links prove my statement, that she's talking about regulating Banking and Pharma, but she's talking about _breaking up_ Tech giants; therein lies the problem.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Banking already has separations in the Volcker rule (And Dodd-Frank overall, which have been loosened under the current administration), and arguably has already been broken up along the lines Warren is proposing.
- shantly 7y ago
  Massive pools of data, especially about people, being all of 1) hugely valuable to AI, 2) very, very hard to bootstrap without massive amounts of money (so, a strong moat to competition), and 3) basically the Stasi on steroids but oh don't worry it's fine because it's for profit this time, is the main reason I'd like to see at least Facebook and Google take a huge hit. As in I'd like that part of their value to be regulated out of existence entirely, because I think it's awful at best and incredibly dangerous at worst.

save_ferris 7y ago

She founded the CFPB, one of the most effective agencies in combating financial wrongdoing, and has a platform for dealing with banking and pharma. One headline does not a campaign platform make.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

oneepic 7y ago

This might be worth mentioning: American political-sci textbooks point out that US Presidents have historically been more productive by focusing on fewer initiatives during their tenure in office. So, if Warren were to actually become President and focus on just big tech alone, it would likely be a lot more successful than trying to go after big-everything, or big-<a few other things>. That said, this idea only applies to their time in office, not their campaign (I'm sure lots of voters want to see a crackdown on many big businesses other than tech). But it still influences things.