5 ms·

Smash the tech giants into many little pieces and their market power is reduced to the point that it really is private businesses and none of this matters. yout

by harry8 5y ago

Smash the tech giants into many little pieces and their market power is reduced to the point that it really is private businesses and none of this matters. youtube_v1 blocks your video, touyube_v2 or v3 or whatever will have it because they are separate and not a cartel as that would be illegal. The problem is facbook, google, apple, microsoft, etc etc are all vastly too big. If they need to be monolithic (they don't, but let's entertain the argument ) then treat them as a utility the same way we treat natural monopolies of drinking water distribution. Nationalisation is one way. Regulated return and heavily regulated business practise is another. Generally hacking it up into pieces and letting the pieces remain private is preferred when that can be done effectively. Nobody cares that NBC didn't cover this speech. It's not interesting as a censorship question even if the omission is following the explicit political dictates of their owners (or staff). That's a better place to be all around.

quotemstr 5y ago
> . youtube_v1 blocks your video, touyube_v2 or v3 or whatever will have it because they are separate and not a cartel as that would be illegal. You're supposing that youtube_v1, youtube_v2, and youtube_v3 wouldn't all block you. They would, because all three companies would include a cohort of the same activist employees with the same censorious ideology all pushing to cancel the same people at the same time. And why wouldn't we? That's the situation we have today. People banned from one major social media platform get banned from all major social media platforms pretty quickly. The state even encourages it. Splitting tech companies won't do any good for censorship resistance on its own. We need common carrier requirements, not more heads on the censorship hydra.
- harry8 5y ago
  > They would, because all three companies would include a cohort of the same activist employees with the same censorious ideology all pushing to cancel the same people at the same time. Which is collusion and we have remedies for it. It's just a better place to be all around. >Splitting tech companies won't do any good for censorship resistance on its own It really will. The power imbalance is redressed so a multitude of normal policy options become available that aren't against a monolithic standard oil. But sure, please do focus on the many other benefits of smashing _all_ entities with outsized market power into many pieces wherever such outsized market power arises. edit: 3 is because I was establishing the point and didn't want to list out 50, which is closer to the right number of competing similar sized entities we'd want. If not a thousand.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    > Which is collusion and we have remedies for it. Have you been living in a cave? What would you call today's cross-company bans except collusion?
    - harry8 5y ago
      Yep. I'd call it collusion. I'd encourage prosecution for it. It's good law. It's good to have a legal remedy for the abuse of power. Prosecuting a facebook sized company for doning something flagrantly illegal is a lot harder than one or more of a great many smaller sized companies.

by harry8 5y ago

quotemstr 5y ago

> . youtube_v1 blocks your video, touyube_v2 or v3 or whatever will have it because they are separate and not a cartel as that would be illegal. You're supposing that youtube_v1, youtube_v2, and youtube_v3 wouldn't all block you. They would, because all three companies would include a cohort of the same activist employees with the same censorious ideology all pushing to cancel the same people at the same time. And why wouldn't we? That's the situation we have today. People banned from one major social media platform get banned from all major social media platforms pretty quickly. The state even encourages it. Splitting tech companies won't do any good for censorship resistance on its own. We need common carrier requirements, not more heads on the censorship hydra.

harry8 5y ago
> They would, because all three companies would include a cohort of the same activist employees with the same censorious ideology all pushing to cancel the same people at the same time. Which is collusion and we have remedies for it. It's just a better place to be all around. >Splitting tech companies won't do any good for censorship resistance on its own It really will. The power imbalance is redressed so a multitude of normal policy options become available that aren't against a monolithic standard oil. But sure, please do focus on the many other benefits of smashing _all_ entities with outsized market power into many pieces wherever such outsized market power arises. edit: 3 is because I was establishing the point and didn't want to list out 50, which is closer to the right number of competing similar sized entities we'd want. If not a thousand.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > Which is collusion and we have remedies for it. Have you been living in a cave? What would you call today's cross-company bans except collusion?
  - harry8 5y ago
    Yep. I'd call it collusion. I'd encourage prosecution for it. It's good law. It's good to have a legal remedy for the abuse of power. Prosecuting a facebook sized company for doning something flagrantly illegal is a lot harder than one or more of a great many smaller sized companies.