3 ms·

I agree with the populism idea, however the issue to me is that the US government has lost credibility. And I don't just mean under Trump, he has made it a lot

by xxpor 6y ago

I agree with the populism idea, however the issue to me is that the US government has lost credibility. And I don't just mean under Trump, he has made it a lot worse though. Is this lawsuit an honest attempt at knocking down the big guy everyone hates? Or is it Google's competitors using the power of the state to knock it down for them because they know they can't win honestly (cough Oracle, see also TikTok cough)? With things like Citizens United it's hard not to believe it's the second, especially as they're going after Google search, which your average consumer absolutely loves.

solipsism 6y ago
It seems like you are arguing that it would be good if it was the first. I think that's a fringe view. I think most Americans would love if the government had more power to actually pursue what is in The best interest of the citizenry. Attacking the big guy because he's big is a fundamentally anti-American sentiment that most Americans would reject.
Shivetya 6y ago
Well I would not be so fast in condemning the US as this issue is also occurring in Europe with regards to these very large technology oriented companies. If anything these companies are some of the largest accumulations of wealth and governments want a piece of it. Oh there may be some break ups involved but what is coming down is regulation which will funnel more of the money back into government under the guise of "for the people". US wise, the threat isn't the money in politics or where it goes but that two parties have near exclusive say on what is allowed and what is not. It took someone with the fame and money of Trump to defeat both of them and that extreme of an example should have made it obvious to people the real issue; that for any other party to gain traction is impossible and every attempt to limit how people may assemble and spend money only needs to looked at when it is done through the two established parties. As in, they need reigned in, not political movements looking to get into the game

by xxpor 6y ago

solipsism 6y ago

It seems like you are arguing that it would be good if it was the first. I think that's a fringe view. I think most Americans would love if the government had more power to actually pursue what is in The best interest of the citizenry. Attacking the big guy because he's big is a fundamentally anti-American sentiment that most Americans would reject.

Shivetya 6y ago

Well I would not be so fast in condemning the US as this issue is also occurring in Europe with regards to these very large technology oriented companies. If anything these companies are some of the largest accumulations of wealth and governments want a piece of it. Oh there may be some break ups involved but what is coming down is regulation which will funnel more of the money back into government under the guise of "for the people". US wise, the threat isn't the money in politics or where it goes but that two parties have near exclusive say on what is allowed and what is not. It took someone with the fame and money of Trump to defeat both of them and that extreme of an example should have made it obvious to people the real issue; that for any other party to gain traction is impossible and every attempt to limit how people may assemble and spend money only needs to looked at when it is done through the two established parties. As in, they need reigned in, not political movements looking to get into the game