6 ms·

Does anyone else feel like releasing this report prior this close to the elections is a miscalculation on the part of Democrats? Like it or not, these tech com

Does anyone else feel like releasing this report prior this close to the elections is a miscalculation on the part of Democrats? Like it or not, these tech companies hold a lot of influence via lobbyists as well as their platforms themselves. I’m not saying they will actively try to get a candidate elected who is more friendly to their agendas. However, I don’t see them going out of their way to prevent others from doing it knowing what the future holds should there be an administration change. I’d also be surprised if moderate voters actually give a crap about anti-trust issues, at least not enough to sway their vote one way or the other. If anything, it could have the opposite effect of turning off voters that see this as government overreach, since many moderates are fiscally conservative. This post is out of curiosity and to hear the thoughts of others, so hopefully it isn’t taken the wrong way.

switch11 6y ago
of course it is a mistake Look at what happened to Elizabeth Warren when she started talking a lot about breaking up large companies within TWO WEEKS her lead evaporated and she went to #4 * if someone has a rational explanation for Democratic frontrunner has 14% lead over #2 (Biden) Democratic frontrunner says she will break up tech companies SUDDENLY, within 2 weeks she is #4 in Democratic race would love to hear the rationale for this remarkable coincidence * * there is a lot of stuff behind the scenes If you want to keep going down the rabbithole, Biden's VP just happens to be the most Large Tech Friendly politician on the planet
- sangnoir 6y ago
  The scientific way to look at that 2 week stretch is to try and find possible confounding factors, such as having Pete Butegieg - who was splitting the centrist vote - drop out and endorse Biden.
  - Mxs2000 6y ago
    No don’t ruin their warped worldview where politicians only drop in polls due to the secret tech masters.
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  So your theory is tech was propping her up and without the constant support she dropped down to levels more inline with her competency?
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    I think the theory is that if you own Fb & Google, you can put your thumb on the scales of what content people see. There's clear evidence of this happening to certain news sites, although I think for an election candidate I doubt they would dare.
xyzzyz 6y ago
> I’d also be surprised if moderate voters actually give a crap about anti-trust issues, at least not enough to sway their vote one way or the other. It’s not about anti-trust per se, that’s just an excuse. The goal is to hit the big tech where it hurts, and effectively diminish their power for a long time. This is very popular attitude among Trump voters.
- bladegash 6y ago
  To clarify, are you saying Trump supporters want to see big tech broken up? If so, I just can’t see this persuading a Trump supporter to change their vote.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    Me neither, I was just clarifying the stance on the topic of people whom HN crowd has very little interaction with or understanding of.
hemloc_io 6y ago
Biden has former Google/Fb/Apple lobbyists on staff[1], Harris comes from California. I doubt that Biden will take an overly aggressive stance on tech, or at least more aggressive than the Trump campaign would, section 230 reform etc. [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/05/06/joe-biden-pac-coporate-special-interest-money-pledge/ https://theintercept.com/2019/05/06/joe-biden-pac-coporate-s...
- bladegash 6y ago
  I think that’s a good point. The timing of this announcement just seems a bit bizarre, given the stakes. This could have easily been announced next month. One thing that occurred to me is the potential that Democrats could be using the threat of anti trust actions to pressure the tech companies to be more proactive, re: misinformation prior to the elections. Guess we will know if they make any significant policy changes over the next week or two.
worker767424 6y ago
Miscalculation? No. It's just drumming up support around a policy they think people broadly support (but actually don't care about). It'll be tough talk for a bit, and then representatives will quickly remember where those campaign contributions come from.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bladegash 6y ago
  I get in theory why they would do it, under pretty much anytime other than the month before a pretty consequential election. The timing of this is what seems a bit suspicious (in addition to the points I made and you made, re: campaign contributions). Pelosi - among other politicians - is pretty savvy and I suspect other things are going on behind the scenes. Either that or, in my opinion, this is a pretty boneheaded move.
  - webinvest 6y ago
    Maybe they want more campaign dollars for re-election and plan to get it from lobbyists who want to lobby against their legislation? The monopolies have, almost by definition, the deepest pockets. The steady share prices for these stocks do not indicate that this is concerning to investors.
colinmhayes 6y ago
I'm feeling a pretty strong tech backlash growing, especially with the social dilemma opening a lot of people's eyes. I don't have the polls, but I'm sure the strategists are seeing good numbers for standing up to big tech.
jefe_ 6y ago
I don't know what their endgame is but it seems they timed the release well strategically. Two hours earlier, Trump tweeted that he was ending stimulus negotiations, which led to a big market selloff into the close. Any selloff of FAAMG attributable to the breakup big tech announcement will be unnoticeable, but may accelerate or extend an overall decline which could pressure some connected fiscal conservatives to call for continuation of stimulus talks, and prompt some leans-right voters to consider market decline. So much of the messaging all around seems bizarre that I've started to assume it's simply 'optimized,' and it registers with some subset of voters, making them more likely to vote. If it all seems disjointed, you're not the audience, you check both boxes of 'will vote' and 'vote decided.'
intrasight 6y ago
I seriously doubt that your average down-and-out Democrat think tech monopolies are a pressing issue - any more than I think the average hillbilly Republican thinks that reducing taxes on the 1% is a pressing issue ;)
CPLX 6y ago
This report is pretty clearly bipartisan if you read it. There’s a growing consensus on these issues.

switch11 6y ago

of course it is a mistake Look at what happened to Elizabeth Warren when she started talking a lot about breaking up large companies within TWO WEEKS her lead evaporated and she went to #4 * if someone has a rational explanation for Democratic frontrunner has 14% lead over #2 (Biden) Democratic frontrunner says she will break up tech companies SUDDENLY, within 2 weeks she is #4 in Democratic race would love to hear the rationale for this remarkable coincidence * * there is a lot of stuff behind the scenes If you want to keep going down the rabbithole, Biden's VP just happens to be the most Large Tech Friendly politician on the planet

sangnoir 6y ago
The scientific way to look at that 2 week stretch is to try and find possible confounding factors, such as having Pete Butegieg - who was splitting the centrist vote - drop out and endorse Biden.
- Mxs2000 6y ago
  No don’t ruin their warped worldview where politicians only drop in polls due to the secret tech masters.
tick_tock_tick 6y ago
So your theory is tech was propping her up and without the constant support she dropped down to levels more inline with her competency?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I think the theory is that if you own Fb & Google, you can put your thumb on the scales of what content people see. There's clear evidence of this happening to certain news sites, although I think for an election candidate I doubt they would dare.

xyzzyz 6y ago

> I’d also be surprised if moderate voters actually give a crap about anti-trust issues, at least not enough to sway their vote one way or the other. It’s not about anti-trust per se, that’s just an excuse. The goal is to hit the big tech where it hurts, and effectively diminish their power for a long time. This is very popular attitude among Trump voters.

bladegash 6y ago
To clarify, are you saying Trump supporters want to see big tech broken up? If so, I just can’t see this persuading a Trump supporter to change their vote.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Me neither, I was just clarifying the stance on the topic of people whom HN crowd has very little interaction with or understanding of.

hemloc_io 6y ago

Biden has former Google/Fb/Apple lobbyists on staff[1], Harris comes from California. I doubt that Biden will take an overly aggressive stance on tech, or at least more aggressive than the Trump campaign would, section 230 reform etc. [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/05/06/joe-biden-pac-coporate-special-interest-money-pledge/ https://theintercept.com/2019/05/06/joe-biden-pac-coporate-s...

bladegash 6y ago
I think that’s a good point. The timing of this announcement just seems a bit bizarre, given the stakes. This could have easily been announced next month. One thing that occurred to me is the potential that Democrats could be using the threat of anti trust actions to pressure the tech companies to be more proactive, re: misinformation prior to the elections. Guess we will know if they make any significant policy changes over the next week or two.

worker767424 6y ago

Miscalculation? No. It's just drumming up support around a policy they think people broadly support (but actually don't care about). It'll be tough talk for a bit, and then representatives will quickly remember where those campaign contributions come from.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bladegash 6y ago
I get in theory why they would do it, under pretty much anytime other than the month before a pretty consequential election. The timing of this is what seems a bit suspicious (in addition to the points I made and you made, re: campaign contributions). Pelosi - among other politicians - is pretty savvy and I suspect other things are going on behind the scenes. Either that or, in my opinion, this is a pretty boneheaded move.
- webinvest 6y ago
  Maybe they want more campaign dollars for re-election and plan to get it from lobbyists who want to lobby against their legislation? The monopolies have, almost by definition, the deepest pockets. The steady share prices for these stocks do not indicate that this is concerning to investors.

colinmhayes 6y ago

I'm feeling a pretty strong tech backlash growing, especially with the social dilemma opening a lot of people's eyes. I don't have the polls, but I'm sure the strategists are seeing good numbers for standing up to big tech.

jefe_ 6y ago

I don't know what their endgame is but it seems they timed the release well strategically. Two hours earlier, Trump tweeted that he was ending stimulus negotiations, which led to a big market selloff into the close. Any selloff of FAAMG attributable to the breakup big tech announcement will be unnoticeable, but may accelerate or extend an overall decline which could pressure some connected fiscal conservatives to call for continuation of stimulus talks, and prompt some leans-right voters to consider market decline. So much of the messaging all around seems bizarre that I've started to assume it's simply 'optimized,' and it registers with some subset of voters, making them more likely to vote. If it all seems disjointed, you're not the audience, you check both boxes of 'will vote' and 'vote decided.'

intrasight 6y ago

I seriously doubt that your average down-and-out Democrat think tech monopolies are a pressing issue - any more than I think the average hillbilly Republican thinks that reducing taxes on the 1% is a pressing issue ;)

CPLX 6y ago

This report is pretty clearly bipartisan if you read it. There’s a growing consensus on these issues.