6 ms·

Love the fact that this AMP nonsense might be the final straw that really got Google in hot water with various entities. Sadly, the only meaningful way to kill

Love the fact that this AMP nonsense might be the final straw that really got Google in hot water with various entities. Sadly, the only meaningful way to kill the Google beast is to break it up. If they're fined, even if it's a significant sum, it will just be a rounding error on their balance sheet and another cost of doing (sleazy) business.

mancerayder 6y ago
I don't know, I think it might be for real this time. The previous administration declined to pursue antitrust violations against Google in like 2013, and it's true that Democrats tend to be closer to Silicon Valley. But today there's bipartisan agreement we have a problem, with 40 states filing suit. But the EU wants to punish Google by taxing a percentage of the profit. Let's slay the monopolistic beast. I think we're finally headed in the right direction.
- simonswords82 6y ago
  I totally agree. I feel like what was once an incredible success story and a real force for good is now a cancer on the Internet. Same goes for Facebook et al.
- serial_dev 6y ago
  I don't see any chance they would seriously attempt to break them up. Fines, sure, but attempting to break it up? No way. These companies are insanely valuable to the United States. The tech sector is one of the most influential sectors, the incoming administration leans even more pro Silicon Valley than the previous (which didn't do much to oppose the tech sector apart from a sternly worded five minute interview with Tucker). The republicans also just pretend their opposition to make sure they keep their followers outraged over the "elite liberals in California". Most likely they just want a bigger piece of the "influence pie" and when they float ideas like breaking them up, it's just a negotiation tactic to get a bigger slice from that "pie". I also don't see the EU seriously challenge the American tech sector, as the US would not tolerate such an attack on their companies. The US has thousand ways to fight back, increasing tariffs, decreasing military presence, persecuting shady characters from the EU and more (im sure they can get more creative than I just did).
  - FpUser 6y ago
    >"...increasing military presence..." What's the point? You think the US will really threaten EU with the war?
    - serial_dev 6y ago
      Sorry, wanted to write decreasing, making the EU more vulnerable to neighboring countries.
      - FpUser 6y ago
        I do not think that would really work either. It would be suicidal for either EU or Russia to fight each other. All this "threat" talk I think is just a way to squeeze the money and governments always need some enemy to deflect attention from their own fuck-ups.
        serial_dev 6y ago
        That could be true, it might be more theatre than threat. I only know that anytime the US reduces (or Russia increases) the military presence in some area, it's in the news for weeks (as examples, Turkey, Syria, Estonia, Germany come to mind). Also, the "theatre" can also work, as politicians want to be re-elected and if enough people believe that their country is in risk because the US troop numbers are reduced, then it becomes a way to pressure the EU even if the real military threat is not that great. Though I still think my point stands, as the US must have ways to pressure the EU to not take a strong stand against tech giants.
        FpUser 6y ago
        Of course the US can and will pressure. But up to a point. Otherwise they might be told to f.. off and mind their own business. More likely is that they will reach some compromise.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  I remain skeptical that they're really going to want to do that in the competition with China era
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    Why not? I think the West’s ability to encourage market competition via antitrust enforcement is perhaps one of the most valuable tools when competing with China. The more competitive a market the more it will innovate, the more people it will reach, and the jobs it will create. Monopolies hurt our ability to compete with China. Strong antitrust regulation keeps a market healthy.
    - emodendroket 6y ago
      I don't think a bunch of little business are going to manage the kind of global reach sought here.
      - elliekelly 6y ago
        I don't think any of the businesses that would spin out from Google would be anything close to "little".
        emodendroket 6y ago
        In that case the desired competition might not happen -- or could come from China which is the worst-case scenario if you're planning a sort of economic cold war
- tehjoker 6y ago
  The administration is quietly adding tech ppl to high positions to thank them for helping Biden through the election season. They helped him to avoid this kind of regulation. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/with-news-of-hunter-bidens-criminal-5e6 https://greenwald.substack.com/p/with-news-of-hunter-bidens-... https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/12/12/there-it-is-politico-biden-transition-team-quietly-brings-on-facebook-google-employees/ https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/12/12/there-it-is-politi...
chrismorgan 6y ago
> If they're fined, even if it's a significant sum, it will just be a rounding error on their balance sheet Ah, that word “significant”. Significant for whom? Perhaps a 100 billion dollars fine would be significant.
maxwell 6y ago
Yeah, they had a shot at "regulated as a utility", but that ship has sailed. I'm looking forward to when criminal charges against corporations and "corporate executions" (i.e. revoking corporate charters and dissolving the firm) enters the Overton window.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Utility never made sense because free software manages the IP part of the commons so much more efficiently. I.e. utility legislation - should put the ISP utility in charge of running the physical infra - require that all the "software used for interoperable protocols" I.e. we are completely separating "google the data center farmer" from "google the software writer", and then shooting one of them.
chongli 6y ago
If it’s just a rounding error on the balance sheet then it’s not a significant sum by definition. Fine them a trillion dollars and it won’t be a rounding error.
- simonswords82 6y ago
  Or better still a high percentage of profits/revenue

mancerayder 6y ago

I don't know, I think it might be for real this time. The previous administration declined to pursue antitrust violations against Google in like 2013, and it's true that Democrats tend to be closer to Silicon Valley. But today there's bipartisan agreement we have a problem, with 40 states filing suit. But the EU wants to punish Google by taxing a percentage of the profit. Let's slay the monopolistic beast. I think we're finally headed in the right direction.

simonswords82 6y ago
I totally agree. I feel like what was once an incredible success story and a real force for good is now a cancer on the Internet. Same goes for Facebook et al.
serial_dev 6y ago
I don't see any chance they would seriously attempt to break them up. Fines, sure, but attempting to break it up? No way. These companies are insanely valuable to the United States. The tech sector is one of the most influential sectors, the incoming administration leans even more pro Silicon Valley than the previous (which didn't do much to oppose the tech sector apart from a sternly worded five minute interview with Tucker). The republicans also just pretend their opposition to make sure they keep their followers outraged over the "elite liberals in California". Most likely they just want a bigger piece of the "influence pie" and when they float ideas like breaking them up, it's just a negotiation tactic to get a bigger slice from that "pie". I also don't see the EU seriously challenge the American tech sector, as the US would not tolerate such an attack on their companies. The US has thousand ways to fight back, increasing tariffs, decreasing military presence, persecuting shady characters from the EU and more (im sure they can get more creative than I just did).
- FpUser 6y ago
  >"...increasing military presence..." What's the point? You think the US will really threaten EU with the war?
  - serial_dev 6y ago
    Sorry, wanted to write decreasing, making the EU more vulnerable to neighboring countries.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      I do not think that would really work either. It would be suicidal for either EU or Russia to fight each other. All this "threat" talk I think is just a way to squeeze the money and governments always need some enemy to deflect attention from their own fuck-ups.
      - serial_dev 6y ago
        That could be true, it might be more theatre than threat. I only know that anytime the US reduces (or Russia increases) the military presence in some area, it's in the news for weeks (as examples, Turkey, Syria, Estonia, Germany come to mind). Also, the "theatre" can also work, as politicians want to be re-elected and if enough people believe that their country is in risk because the US troop numbers are reduced, then it becomes a way to pressure the EU even if the real military threat is not that great. Though I still think my point stands, as the US must have ways to pressure the EU to not take a strong stand against tech giants.
        FpUser 6y ago
        Of course the US can and will pressure. But up to a point. Otherwise they might be told to f.. off and mind their own business. More likely is that they will reach some compromise.
emodendroket 6y ago
I remain skeptical that they're really going to want to do that in the competition with China era
- elliekelly 6y ago
  Why not? I think the West’s ability to encourage market competition via antitrust enforcement is perhaps one of the most valuable tools when competing with China. The more competitive a market the more it will innovate, the more people it will reach, and the jobs it will create. Monopolies hurt our ability to compete with China. Strong antitrust regulation keeps a market healthy.
  - emodendroket 6y ago
    I don't think a bunch of little business are going to manage the kind of global reach sought here.
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      I don't think any of the businesses that would spin out from Google would be anything close to "little".
      - emodendroket 6y ago
        In that case the desired competition might not happen -- or could come from China which is the worst-case scenario if you're planning a sort of economic cold war
tehjoker 6y ago
The administration is quietly adding tech ppl to high positions to thank them for helping Biden through the election season. They helped him to avoid this kind of regulation. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/with-news-of-hunter-bidens-criminal-5e6 https://greenwald.substack.com/p/with-news-of-hunter-bidens-... https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/12/12/there-it-is-politico-biden-transition-team-quietly-brings-on-facebook-google-employees/ https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/12/12/there-it-is-politi...

chrismorgan 6y ago

> If they're fined, even if it's a significant sum, it will just be a rounding error on their balance sheet Ah, that word “significant”. Significant for whom? Perhaps a 100 billion dollars fine would be significant.

maxwell 6y ago

Yeah, they had a shot at "regulated as a utility", but that ship has sailed. I'm looking forward to when criminal charges against corporations and "corporate executions" (i.e. revoking corporate charters and dissolving the firm) enters the Overton window.

Ericson2314 6y ago
Utility never made sense because free software manages the IP part of the commons so much more efficiently. I.e. utility legislation - should put the ISP utility in charge of running the physical infra - require that all the "software used for interoperable protocols" I.e. we are completely separating "google the data center farmer" from "google the software writer", and then shooting one of them.

chongli 6y ago

If it’s just a rounding error on the balance sheet then it’s not a significant sum by definition. Fine them a trillion dollars and it won’t be a rounding error.

simonswords82 6y ago
Or better still a high percentage of profits/revenue