4 ms·

> A lot of this just looks like punishing success to me I guess if you think "success" means companies ending up as monopolies, I guess you're right. In genera

> A lot of this just looks like punishing success to me I guess if you think "success" means companies ending up as monopolies, I guess you're right. In general, capitalism gravitates to a "winner takes it all" situations as with more capital, you can also capture more of the market. But we also generally prefer to have many players in the market so competition still exists. All this work here is trying to prevent monopolies from forming, because currently the US is very much lacking in any tooling to prevent monopolies, as we see in a lot of industries, not just technology. A step in the right direction it seems to me.

LatteLazy 6y ago
The standard in most places (US included) is that monopolies (and duopolies etc) are allowed. But they are not allowed to abuse their positions. That leaves us with 2 issues I think: 1. If people want competitive markets, that's fine but that's a new policy, and big tech is a bad place to start because it's much more competitive than many many other markets. You can pick 1001 other stores than amazon, but you will be paying with Visa or Mastercard... 2. We need to regulate a lot of new utilities. Are you sure you want the FCC deciding what innovations are allowed in search or social media? Aren't there massive free speech issues there?