2 ms·

Breaking up tech is a pretty bipartisan sentiment, I'm not sure that people feel like it's because FB didn't pay enough to play. In my mind there are a bunch o

Breaking up tech is a pretty bipartisan sentiment, I'm not sure that people feel like it's because FB didn't pay enough to play. In my mind there are a bunch of political reasons to choose FB first. 1. Older generations are familiar with what a central role FB plays in their lives, and regardless of what side you find yourself on the political divide, you either think they are pushing radicalizing ads or have silenced e.g. antivax rhetoric which you might agree with. 2. Many people don't really know Alphabet exists. Google is a search company in many people's minds, maybe an email/calendar one too. Outside of HN and maybe some frustrated Q-tubers, I'm not sure people have much hatred for Google. 3. Breaking up Amazon can pretty quickly be spun as a worker's rights/union issue, and I can see how Republicans might have a hard time being seen as promoting unions. At least that's my armchair analysis

ben_w 5y ago
3. Workers rights would be an especially ineffective angle, given Amazon’s enthusiasm for replacing humans with machines wherever possible. I think there’s something a bit iffy about the Kindle looking like a loss-leader for the books, and separately consumer rights & small business issues due to “equivalent” products being substituted silently to make stuff arrive sooner, but a fight over worker rights is just likely to mean it uses “humans need not apply” warehouses even sooner. If that is or isn’t a good outcome, I lack the economic background to even guess confidently. But it would definitely be a spectacular fail politically.
- jszymborski 5y ago
  I think you're right, and I don't think most dems would approach it that way, but I think that Republican news outlets would be framing it that way, and the more progressive wing of the dems wouldn't be able to deny their pro-union sentiment when questioned. I'm just saying there's a ripe culture jamming opportunity here for the right, and it's a tactic they're pretty great at.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > ...but a fight over worker rights is just likely to mean it uses “humans need not apply” warehouses even sooner. The humans at Amazon's warehouses are being utilized as meat-robots in any case, robots that Amazon doesn't have to repair when they break down. This "Sharecroppers or tractors" argument doesn't even register as a dilemma for me: if you're going to take human labor, then pay a living wage, if not, then automate and free the humans to work elsewhere. It's a net-negative on society to have an employed person on food-stamps. Agriculture used to be a major "employer" and then got mechanized; society seems to be better for it.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> 2. Many people don't really know Alphabet exists. Google is a search company in many people's minds, maybe an email/calendar one too. Outside of HN and maybe some frustrated Q-tubers, I'm not sure people have much hatred for Google. Politicians and FTC must know the real alphabet. Like, they're gov agencies who job it is to know this stuff. In fact, existing suits by the government against google show they do in fat know. > n my mind there are a bunch of political reasons to choose FB first. I'm not actually sire that FB is first, i think the media just talks about FB the most.

ben_w 5y ago

3. Workers rights would be an especially ineffective angle, given Amazon’s enthusiasm for replacing humans with machines wherever possible. I think there’s something a bit iffy about the Kindle looking like a loss-leader for the books, and separately consumer rights & small business issues due to “equivalent” products being substituted silently to make stuff arrive sooner, but a fight over worker rights is just likely to mean it uses “humans need not apply” warehouses even sooner. If that is or isn’t a good outcome, I lack the economic background to even guess confidently. But it would definitely be a spectacular fail politically.

jszymborski 5y ago
I think you're right, and I don't think most dems would approach it that way, but I think that Republican news outlets would be framing it that way, and the more progressive wing of the dems wouldn't be able to deny their pro-union sentiment when questioned. I'm just saying there's a ripe culture jamming opportunity here for the right, and it's a tactic they're pretty great at.
sangnoir 5y ago
> ...but a fight over worker rights is just likely to mean it uses “humans need not apply” warehouses even sooner. The humans at Amazon's warehouses are being utilized as meat-robots in any case, robots that Amazon doesn't have to repair when they break down. This "Sharecroppers or tractors" argument doesn't even register as a dilemma for me: if you're going to take human labor, then pay a living wage, if not, then automate and free the humans to work elsewhere. It's a net-negative on society to have an employed person on food-stamps. Agriculture used to be a major "employer" and then got mechanized; society seems to be better for it.

vineyardmike 5y ago

> 2. Many people don't really know Alphabet exists. Google is a search company in many people's minds, maybe an email/calendar one too. Outside of HN and maybe some frustrated Q-tubers, I'm not sure people have much hatred for Google. Politicians and FTC must know the real alphabet. Like, they're gov agencies who job it is to know this stuff. In fact, existing suits by the government against google show they do in fat know. > n my mind there are a bunch of political reasons to choose FB first. I'm not actually sire that FB is first, i think the media just talks about FB the most.