4 ms·

That's wishful thinking. Politicians will never break up Google since they benefit from it.

caesil 3y ago
Fundamentally, Big Tech is an outsized part of what sets America's economy apart. Breaking up any of them would potentially be a footgun.
- deafpolygon 3y ago
  Yep - weakening Big Tech in the US will strengthen China's Big Tech, which no one wants.
  - choeger 3y ago
    So we have to accept control through Google or Apple or otherwise we will be controlled by Alibaba or Huawei? I don't want my devices to be controlled by neither company.
    - deafpolygon 3y ago
      One wants profits; another wants to influence you. Take your pick.
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  I agree that big tech is huge part of the American economy. In the 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt busted up the biggest monopolies and did it boldy. He was a strong believer in capitalism and market forces, and he believed that government had a responsibility to keep market forces working well. I know we are not in the early 1900s anymore, but I think it is interesting to ponder how the only politicians who dare to say something similar today are the furthest left we can imagine (Bernie Sanders and AOC and the like).
  - Animats 3y ago
    > I know we are not in the early 1900s anymore... We still have the antitrust laws of Teddy Roosevelt's era, the Clayton Act and the 1890 Sherman Act. Sherman Act, Section 2: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony." The US Justice Department hasn't often applied that standard rigorously, but it can if it wants to.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Google is not quite Standard Oil though and generally modern tech function in an environment is different from the cartels/trusts/monopolies of the day that it's hardly comparable. Also thankfully general regulatory situation (and arguable level corruption) isn't as quite yet as bad as it was back in the 1900s.
mrweasel 3y ago
It's like banks, it depends on your logic. We have systemically important banks, banks that will always be bailed out. You have two ways of dealing with that scenario, either prepare to save these companies when they fail or make them non-systemic so we can afford to let them fail. What I fail to understand is why it's better for society to support these "to big to fail" companies. Why not break them up. Why not plan break them up if they become to "important" for a lack of a better term? How can you not see it as a political failing that taxpayers have to be ready to save a company, just because you failed to bring it under control? It's mind boggling.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  There’s reasoning if you can actually see what’s happening. Does it outway the costs? It’s a political question, but there’s some benefits. For example, JPMorganChase is “the” big bank lately. It was able to handle the acute financial crisis this year by providing liquidity and a buyer as needed to keep the system from ever losing a deposit. That was likely bad for them as a business, short term, but it happened because the regulators can call up a single organization and get what they want. Big tech has similar (unrealized) opportunities to keep strategically important things going. One possible example is the ease of releasing the Covid contact tracing system. If there were 20 fragmented parties they may never have aligned.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    > There’s reasoning if you can actually see what’s happening. You can't see what's happening though, because JP Morgan "mistakenly" deleted 47 million emails. [0] Their fine for that came to about 12 minutes worth of revenue. They "failed" to keep records, firm-wide, right to the top. [1] Again, their punishment was at the "cost of doing business" level. We're talking about the bank that financed and enabled Epstein here [2]. There are other ways to provide liquidity without relying on these ghoulish overlords who manipulate global markets [3] and finance blackmail operations. 0 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-chase-is-fined-by-sec-over-mistaken-deletion-emails-2023-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-chase-is-fined-by-sec... 1 - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262 2 - https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-attorney-general-terminated-just-days-after-filing-a-lawsuit-against-jpmorgan-chase-for-aiding-epstein/ https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-attorney-general-t... 3 - https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8260-20 https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8260-20
bregma 3y ago
Politicians would never break up Standard Oil or Bell Telephone either.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Why? It's pretty straightforward to show how Standard Oil or Bell Telephone were harmful to consumer interests. With Google.. well they are giving away half+ of their products for free which they wouldn't able to if broken up. Antitrust laws from the 1900s were just not designed with that in mind, they were trying to solve quite different issues.

Fundamentally, Big Tech is an outsized part of what sets America's economy apart. Breaking up any of them would potentially be a footgun.

deafpolygon 3y ago
Yep - weakening Big Tech in the US will strengthen China's Big Tech, which no one wants.
- choeger 3y ago
  So we have to accept control through Google or Apple or otherwise we will be controlled by Alibaba or Huawei? I don't want my devices to be controlled by neither company.
  - deafpolygon 3y ago
    One wants profits; another wants to influence you. Take your pick.
UtopiaPunk 3y ago
I agree that big tech is huge part of the American economy. In the 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt busted up the biggest monopolies and did it boldy. He was a strong believer in capitalism and market forces, and he believed that government had a responsibility to keep market forces working well. I know we are not in the early 1900s anymore, but I think it is interesting to ponder how the only politicians who dare to say something similar today are the furthest left we can imagine (Bernie Sanders and AOC and the like).
- Animats 3y ago
  > I know we are not in the early 1900s anymore... We still have the antitrust laws of Teddy Roosevelt's era, the Clayton Act and the 1890 Sherman Act. Sherman Act, Section 2: "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony." The US Justice Department hasn't often applied that standard rigorously, but it can if it wants to.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Google is not quite Standard Oil though and generally modern tech function in an environment is different from the cartels/trusts/monopolies of the day that it's hardly comparable. Also thankfully general regulatory situation (and arguable level corruption) isn't as quite yet as bad as it was back in the 1900s.

mrweasel 3y ago

It's like banks, it depends on your logic. We have systemically important banks, banks that will always be bailed out. You have two ways of dealing with that scenario, either prepare to save these companies when they fail or make them non-systemic so we can afford to let them fail. What I fail to understand is why it's better for society to support these "to big to fail" companies. Why not break them up. Why not plan break them up if they become to "important" for a lack of a better term? How can you not see it as a political failing that taxpayers have to be ready to save a company, just because you failed to bring it under control? It's mind boggling.

vineyardmike 3y ago
There’s reasoning if you can actually see what’s happening. Does it outway the costs? It’s a political question, but there’s some benefits. For example, JPMorganChase is “the” big bank lately. It was able to handle the acute financial crisis this year by providing liquidity and a buyer as needed to keep the system from ever losing a deposit. That was likely bad for them as a business, short term, but it happened because the regulators can call up a single organization and get what they want. Big tech has similar (unrealized) opportunities to keep strategically important things going. One possible example is the ease of releasing the Covid contact tracing system. If there were 20 fragmented parties they may never have aligned.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  > There’s reasoning if you can actually see what’s happening. You can't see what's happening though, because JP Morgan "mistakenly" deleted 47 million emails. [0] Their fine for that came to about 12 minutes worth of revenue. They "failed" to keep records, firm-wide, right to the top. [1] Again, their punishment was at the "cost of doing business" level. We're talking about the bank that financed and enabled Epstein here [2]. There are other ways to provide liquidity without relying on these ghoulish overlords who manipulate global markets [3] and finance blackmail operations. 0 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-chase-is-fined-by-sec-over-mistaken-deletion-emails-2023-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-chase-is-fined-by-sec... 1 - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262 2 - https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-attorney-general-terminated-just-days-after-filing-a-lawsuit-against-jpmorgan-chase-for-aiding-epstein/ https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-attorney-general-t... 3 - https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8260-20 https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8260-20

bregma 3y ago

Politicians would never break up Standard Oil or Bell Telephone either.

qwytw 3y ago
Why? It's pretty straightforward to show how Standard Oil or Bell Telephone were harmful to consumer interests. With Google.. well they are giving away half+ of their products for free which they wouldn't able to if broken up. Antitrust laws from the 1900s were just not designed with that in mind, they were trying to solve quite different issues.