3 ms·

Ah yes, tech is the industry with the most insidious monopolies, not oil, telecom, or defense. And surely, the current government will enthusiastically move for

Ah yes, tech is the industry with the most insidious monopolies, not oil, telecom, or defense. And surely, the current government will enthusiastically move forward with the actual /legwork/ (rather than saber rattling) of killing its goose that lays the golden egg. Let's be real here. None of these megacorps are getting broken up any time soon. We haven't had a trustbuster in office for a very long time. The megacorp/lobbyist/politico triopoly has ruthlessly, slickly snuffed out any perceived opposition for quite a long time.

TheArcane 6y ago
This is classical whataboutism
- md_ 6y ago
  I’m not sure that’s inherently disqualifying. When it comes to questions of law and justice, it seems entirely reasonable to ask about similar cases, simply to investigate the equal and fair application of law, no? “Whatsboutism”, as I understand it, is a technique where one brings up ill-proven allegations that are unrelated to the matter at hand merely to distract. Here, the claim seems much more on point: it’s that this is a political case, as shown by the failure to pursue similar cases against other companies. (Is it? I don’t personally know. But it seems like a fair point to make.)
  - gfodor 6y ago
    Law especially at the federal DOJ level is as much about which cases to pursue as it is about what cases have merit. Either no monopolists should be prosecuted or a select subset worthy of the opportunity cost should be. How big the subset is a question, and the proper subset could be zero, but it's not a contradiction to see selective enforcement of anti-trust. The opposite, where many big, massive cases are opened on many fronts simultaneously is almost never the methodology of federal law enforcement afaict.
    - md_ 6y ago
      Sure, but the claim here wasn't (as I read it) that this is unusual, but that it's unjust. If prosecutors are selecting the highest ROI targets based on some calculation of which cases they can win and which cases have the biggest consumer or market impact (or are most egregious), that doesn't seem especially problematic. If they're selecting targets for prosecution based on who has political connections and who does not, however, that's very different. Taken to the extreme, it's "whataboutism" to ask about racial disparities in criminal prosecutions; if a defendant is guilty, who cares if some other accused perpetrator of a different race wasn't prosecuted for a similar offense? The impartial application of law--at least with respect to considerations like race or political connectedness--can certainly conflict with the pragmatic considerations of prosecutorial strategy, and I don't think it's simply "whataboutism" to question that tension.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        Well, the burden of proof seems to be on the person making claims going after big tech vs other industries is politically motivated. I would prefer the DoJ step in to take actions against companies that are abusing their power to massively violate the world's privacy through surveillance systems which have unimaginable capabilities for shaping global human behavior. It's hard to think of a more worthy target of anti-trust law than the companies which are poised to control the minds and behavior of billions due to their market power.
        md_ 6y ago
        Agreed. But I read the parent’s comment as being about the legitimacy of such a claim itself—that the claim of political bias is not merely lacking proof but “whataboutism” and thus illegitimate or irrelevant, even if proven. :) Of course one might view these cases as legitimate, and bemoan that similar prosecutions don’t happen against companies in other industries, as well. The effect of political bias may be to suppress cases that should be brought, not to bring cases that shouldn’t be.
- filoleg 6y ago
  no, it isn't. The parent comment isn't saying "but what about those other things we should break up just because?". It is saying "you make it sound like breaking up big tech will accomplish a lot, even though, I think, breaking up those other things is a way higher priority that will accomplish much more, and here is why".
  - yowlingcat 6y ago
    100%. When I look at the level of regulatory capture from pharma (which I neglected to mention, sorry!), oil, defense and telecom, as well as the slickness that they engage with optics through PR, all I can say is that the way forward is anything but easy.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  > Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. Oh? You see, I was not charging the OP with hypocrisy. To the contrary -- I think that the desire makes sense and would be nice to see happen. But I just wonder about how the messy details of that would work. I mean, we have certainly failed to break up other industries because they compromised the antitrust apparatus through regulatory capture. To not engage with the elephant in the room of regulatory capture (when talking about antitrust) is to not talk about antitrust at all.
- dang 6y ago
  Please keep canned arguments and name-calling off HN. It leads to much lamer discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

TheArcane 6y ago

This is classical whataboutism

md_ 6y ago
I’m not sure that’s inherently disqualifying. When it comes to questions of law and justice, it seems entirely reasonable to ask about similar cases, simply to investigate the equal and fair application of law, no? “Whatsboutism”, as I understand it, is a technique where one brings up ill-proven allegations that are unrelated to the matter at hand merely to distract. Here, the claim seems much more on point: it’s that this is a political case, as shown by the failure to pursue similar cases against other companies. (Is it? I don’t personally know. But it seems like a fair point to make.)
- gfodor 6y ago
  Law especially at the federal DOJ level is as much about which cases to pursue as it is about what cases have merit. Either no monopolists should be prosecuted or a select subset worthy of the opportunity cost should be. How big the subset is a question, and the proper subset could be zero, but it's not a contradiction to see selective enforcement of anti-trust. The opposite, where many big, massive cases are opened on many fronts simultaneously is almost never the methodology of federal law enforcement afaict.
  - md_ 6y ago
    Sure, but the claim here wasn't (as I read it) that this is unusual, but that it's unjust. If prosecutors are selecting the highest ROI targets based on some calculation of which cases they can win and which cases have the biggest consumer or market impact (or are most egregious), that doesn't seem especially problematic. If they're selecting targets for prosecution based on who has political connections and who does not, however, that's very different. Taken to the extreme, it's "whataboutism" to ask about racial disparities in criminal prosecutions; if a defendant is guilty, who cares if some other accused perpetrator of a different race wasn't prosecuted for a similar offense? The impartial application of law--at least with respect to considerations like race or political connectedness--can certainly conflict with the pragmatic considerations of prosecutorial strategy, and I don't think it's simply "whataboutism" to question that tension.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      Well, the burden of proof seems to be on the person making claims going after big tech vs other industries is politically motivated. I would prefer the DoJ step in to take actions against companies that are abusing their power to massively violate the world's privacy through surveillance systems which have unimaginable capabilities for shaping global human behavior. It's hard to think of a more worthy target of anti-trust law than the companies which are poised to control the minds and behavior of billions due to their market power.
      - md_ 6y ago
        Agreed. But I read the parent’s comment as being about the legitimacy of such a claim itself—that the claim of political bias is not merely lacking proof but “whataboutism” and thus illegitimate or irrelevant, even if proven. :) Of course one might view these cases as legitimate, and bemoan that similar prosecutions don’t happen against companies in other industries, as well. The effect of political bias may be to suppress cases that should be brought, not to bring cases that shouldn’t be.
filoleg 6y ago
no, it isn't. The parent comment isn't saying "but what about those other things we should break up just because?". It is saying "you make it sound like breaking up big tech will accomplish a lot, even though, I think, breaking up those other things is a way higher priority that will accomplish much more, and here is why".
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  100%. When I look at the level of regulatory capture from pharma (which I neglected to mention, sorry!), oil, defense and telecom, as well as the slickness that they engage with optics through PR, all I can say is that the way forward is anything but easy.
yowlingcat 6y ago
> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. Oh? You see, I was not charging the OP with hypocrisy. To the contrary -- I think that the desire makes sense and would be nice to see happen. But I just wonder about how the messy details of that would work. I mean, we have certainly failed to break up other industries because they compromised the antitrust apparatus through regulatory capture. To not engage with the elephant in the room of regulatory capture (when talking about antitrust) is to not talk about antitrust at all.
dang 6y ago
Please keep canned arguments and name-calling off HN. It leads to much lamer discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20whataboutism&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...