4 ms·

This is just a gross manipulation of societal discourse. Yet another reason the biggest tech companies need to be broken up or regulated like the public utiliti

This is just a gross manipulation of societal discourse. Yet another reason the biggest tech companies need to be broken up or regulated like the public utilities they are.

bediger4000 5y ago
Should this breakup include Microsoft? Because we as a country had a great opportunity in 2000, and decided not to do it. Or is it just Twitter, Apple and Google? Or does Facebook somehow fit in?
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  In my opinion it’s all of them, but the reasons are potentially different for each. I think Twitter, Google, and Facebook are the most important to regulate because they control telecommunications in the modern world. These companies have more users than most governments have citizens. Their influence and power is similar in scope. It’s not okay for them to own the new public square but manage it outside the protections of the first amendment or equivalents in other countries. Legalities aside, I just think it is plain bad for ideas to flourish. With Apple and Microsoft, I think the issue is less around speech and more around market power and abusive practices. Microsoft can bundle many unrelated products into one big license - for example Teams, their Slack competitor, is part of various Office licenses. Apple’s verticalization and walled garden approach means they can stop outside competition (for example payments for digital content on your phone) and charge exorbitant fees. Leaving aside these specifics, you could also make an argument that any company that has a market capitalization of $100B+ is simply too big and distorts competition to an extent where they are shielded from it to some degree. That’s a reason to either break them up or regulate them in some way to the public’s interest, where they might be treated more as a public agency.
  - bediger4000 5y ago
    Looks like different regulations would apply for Twitter, Google and Facebook. Twitter does have some "public square" aspects, as does Fackbook, but Google really doesn't. It's just an ad giant that does some things like Android to increase its advertising efficiency. What regulations would apply? Everything we've found out about Facebook from Frances Haugen the Facebook "whistleblower" has Facebook actually boosting conservative content. Seems like the old "liberal bias" canard doesn't apply there. Twitter's problem is mostly that the platform encourages dogpiling, and apparently they have a policy of allowing certain bot swarms to operate freely. Twitter should also carefully consider what letting spammers run free does to their reputation: faxing, phone calls, usenet have all fallen to spammers. I have some emotional sympathy with breaking up any company that goes above a certain market capitalization, but it's really hard to quantify what the limit should be and why. Treating large corporations as "public agencies" is the definition of socialism, too. I don't know how that could be done consistently - nationalize some companies, but not others seems unfair, and prone to abuse by political parties.

This is just a gross manipulation of societal discourse. Yet another reason the biggest tech companies need to be broken up or regulated like the public utilities they are.

bediger4000 5y ago

Should this breakup include Microsoft? Because we as a country had a great opportunity in 2000, and decided not to do it. Or is it just Twitter, Apple and Google? Or does Facebook somehow fit in?

throwawaysea 5y ago
In my opinion it’s all of them, but the reasons are potentially different for each. I think Twitter, Google, and Facebook are the most important to regulate because they control telecommunications in the modern world. These companies have more users than most governments have citizens. Their influence and power is similar in scope. It’s not okay for them to own the new public square but manage it outside the protections of the first amendment or equivalents in other countries. Legalities aside, I just think it is plain bad for ideas to flourish. With Apple and Microsoft, I think the issue is less around speech and more around market power and abusive practices. Microsoft can bundle many unrelated products into one big license - for example Teams, their Slack competitor, is part of various Office licenses. Apple’s verticalization and walled garden approach means they can stop outside competition (for example payments for digital content on your phone) and charge exorbitant fees. Leaving aside these specifics, you could also make an argument that any company that has a market capitalization of $100B+ is simply too big and distorts competition to an extent where they are shielded from it to some degree. That’s a reason to either break them up or regulate them in some way to the public’s interest, where they might be treated more as a public agency.
- bediger4000 5y ago
  Looks like different regulations would apply for Twitter, Google and Facebook. Twitter does have some "public square" aspects, as does Fackbook, but Google really doesn't. It's just an ad giant that does some things like Android to increase its advertising efficiency. What regulations would apply? Everything we've found out about Facebook from Frances Haugen the Facebook "whistleblower" has Facebook actually boosting conservative content. Seems like the old "liberal bias" canard doesn't apply there. Twitter's problem is mostly that the platform encourages dogpiling, and apparently they have a policy of allowing certain bot swarms to operate freely. Twitter should also carefully consider what letting spammers run free does to their reputation: faxing, phone calls, usenet have all fallen to spammers. I have some emotional sympathy with breaking up any company that goes above a certain market capitalization, but it's really hard to quantify what the limit should be and why. Treating large corporations as "public agencies" is the definition of socialism, too. I don't know how that could be done consistently - nationalize some companies, but not others seems unfair, and prone to abuse by political parties.