12 ms·

Google seriously needs to be broken up into small pieces or disolved entirely. Their leadership just cannot be be trusted and the internet would be better off w

Google seriously needs to be broken up into small pieces or disolved entirely. Their leadership just cannot be be trusted and the internet would be better off without them around.

blntechie 5y ago
From a staunch opposer to government regulation in tech 4-5 years back, I have turned into someone who will cheer a break up of these big tech companies.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  Everyone needs time to grow up. I too started out thinking it was all so simple and the "free market" would take care of everything etc. Then your world view grows. Your list of "known unknowns" dwarfs your list of knowns. You become more pragmatic. It is clear to me now that some level of top-down coordination is necessary for success. Even national-level coordination is not going to be enough, though. It now needs to be at a global level.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    Free market is still a good idea, it's just not enough. What's missing is that we somehow need to ensure all market actors are at most 2-3 orders of magnitude in size/power of each other. Google (and other FAANG type companies) are becoming comfortable in power to whole states. The "free" market just becomes a tyranny of the powerful in this situation.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      > are becoming comfortable Ugh, comparable, not comfortable.
mrweasel 5y ago
Unlike Microsoft, where at least some of the business units could do pretty well on their own, if the company was broken up, I doubt the same would be true for Google. Other than search and ads, I doubt other part would do particular well. Breaking up Google would result in a lot of people losing their job. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong in the idea of breaking up Google, but I doubt it will happen.
- awild 5y ago
  Wouldn't this be eventually a good thing? I imagine less free online services, which would condition people to also pay online more often. It would be a bumpy road, but I can see how online magazines could make more money that way, since I'm already used to paying for my online office suite, mail etc. It could also just lead to weird tie-in with a central ad service sharing anonymized data between all participating companies, basically spreading the data Google monopolizes further.
- flyinglizard 5y ago
  I can see at least five entirely separate units with very little synergy: 1. Search + Maps 2. GSuite + Gmail 3. GCP 4. YouTube 5. Android + Chrome Each can probably support its own P&L sheet, other than perhaps the last (not sure about that one). Such a move would surely limit innovation (I can’t see these smaller entities doing things like mobile ASIC development, although if TPU is under Search it would continue), but increase competition, especially in the ad market.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > Such a move would surely limit innovation [...] but increase competition Wouldn't increasing competition also increase innovation as more companies can actually enter the market with new ideas? Sure, the innovation at Google itself might go down, but that should hardly be an argument against solving their anti-competitive behavior.
    - flyinglizard 5y ago
      There are some things requiring capital investment at a scale that wouldn’t be feasible for a company outside the 100bn market cap club. Data centers, intercontinental data links, high end VLSI development, high end smartphone hardware and things like Waymo all come to mind. It’s more than cash alone, it’s low cost nature of their mistakes (because everything is paid for by Search anyway) that enables that.
rawoke083600 5y ago
Can we trust the leadership of "smaller versions" of Google ?
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Is the current Google leadership a shining beacon of trustability?
- nosianu 5y ago
  The point is that we won't need to nearly as much because they don't have that overwhelming power.
  - rawoke083600 5y ago
    i humbly disagree, if i understand you correctly, a smaller google will not be evil because 'they couldnt'. Maybe not the best example but i dont steal(do crime) because of opportunity. I dont steal because of my 'good moral compass' (thank you parents). If we start chopping-up companies because we want to remove their 'ability' to be evil. It becomes a arbitrary target/moving goal posts ? What size will stop/prevent evil ? Will a 'better'(moral compass) not work better ? More accountability for managers and their decisions ? Not saying there are not other valid/good reasons to chop up companies but to prevent evil ?
kubb 5y ago
No need to break them up, just regulate te shit out of how they're allowed to use user data and to advertise online. They will shrink to a medium sized company within a quarter.
EastSmith 5y ago
Hope they broke FAAG and MS out of things like this.

Google seriously needs to be broken up into small pieces or disolved entirely. Their leadership just cannot be be trusted and the internet would be better off without them around.

blntechie 5y ago

From a staunch opposer to government regulation in tech 4-5 years back, I have turned into someone who will cheer a break up of these big tech companies.

globular-toast 5y ago
Everyone needs time to grow up. I too started out thinking it was all so simple and the "free market" would take care of everything etc. Then your world view grows. Your list of "known unknowns" dwarfs your list of knowns. You become more pragmatic. It is clear to me now that some level of top-down coordination is necessary for success. Even national-level coordination is not going to be enough, though. It now needs to be at a global level.
- feanaro 5y ago
  Free market is still a good idea, it's just not enough. What's missing is that we somehow need to ensure all market actors are at most 2-3 orders of magnitude in size/power of each other. Google (and other FAANG type companies) are becoming comfortable in power to whole states. The "free" market just becomes a tyranny of the powerful in this situation.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    > are becoming comfortable Ugh, comparable, not comfortable.

mrweasel 5y ago

Unlike Microsoft, where at least some of the business units could do pretty well on their own, if the company was broken up, I doubt the same would be true for Google. Other than search and ads, I doubt other part would do particular well. Breaking up Google would result in a lot of people losing their job. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong in the idea of breaking up Google, but I doubt it will happen.

awild 5y ago
Wouldn't this be eventually a good thing? I imagine less free online services, which would condition people to also pay online more often. It would be a bumpy road, but I can see how online magazines could make more money that way, since I'm already used to paying for my online office suite, mail etc. It could also just lead to weird tie-in with a central ad service sharing anonymized data between all participating companies, basically spreading the data Google monopolizes further.
flyinglizard 5y ago
I can see at least five entirely separate units with very little synergy: 1. Search + Maps 2. GSuite + Gmail 3. GCP 4. YouTube 5. Android + Chrome Each can probably support its own P&L sheet, other than perhaps the last (not sure about that one). Such a move would surely limit innovation (I can’t see these smaller entities doing things like mobile ASIC development, although if TPU is under Search it would continue), but increase competition, especially in the ad market.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > Such a move would surely limit innovation [...] but increase competition Wouldn't increasing competition also increase innovation as more companies can actually enter the market with new ideas? Sure, the innovation at Google itself might go down, but that should hardly be an argument against solving their anti-competitive behavior.
  - flyinglizard 5y ago
    There are some things requiring capital investment at a scale that wouldn’t be feasible for a company outside the 100bn market cap club. Data centers, intercontinental data links, high end VLSI development, high end smartphone hardware and things like Waymo all come to mind. It’s more than cash alone, it’s low cost nature of their mistakes (because everything is paid for by Search anyway) that enables that.

rawoke083600 5y ago

Can we trust the leadership of "smaller versions" of Google ?

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Is the current Google leadership a shining beacon of trustability?
nosianu 5y ago
The point is that we won't need to nearly as much because they don't have that overwhelming power.
- rawoke083600 5y ago
  i humbly disagree, if i understand you correctly, a smaller google will not be evil because 'they couldnt'. Maybe not the best example but i dont steal(do crime) because of opportunity. I dont steal because of my 'good moral compass' (thank you parents). If we start chopping-up companies because we want to remove their 'ability' to be evil. It becomes a arbitrary target/moving goal posts ? What size will stop/prevent evil ? Will a 'better'(moral compass) not work better ? More accountability for managers and their decisions ? Not saying there are not other valid/good reasons to chop up companies but to prevent evil ?

kubb 5y ago

No need to break them up, just regulate te shit out of how they're allowed to use user data and to advertise online. They will shrink to a medium sized company within a quarter.

EastSmith 5y ago

Hope they broke FAAG and MS out of things like this.