Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Break up Big Tech?
RaceBannon
Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,108 
in Tug Tavern
https://huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-amazon-google-facebook_n_5c827b6ae4b0d93616273346
en. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled a plan Friday morning to promote competition in the tech sector by breaking up tech giants including Amazon, Google and Facebook.
“Today’s big tech companies have too much power ― too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else,” Warren wrote in a post published on Medium.
“I want a government that makes sure everybody ― even the biggest and most powerful companies in America ― plays by the rules. And I want to make sure that the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish,” she continued. “To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor.”
Warren is proposing “two major steps,” she said. The first would be passing legislation that designates certain large tech platforms as utilities that “would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform.” The second would be appointing regulators that would “unwind anti-competitive mergers,” like Amazon and Whole Foods, and Facebook and Instagram.
Interesting because big tech is on the left and works to her advantage. Props for taking a stand that could work against her I guess
The Feds broke up Standard Oil, Ma Bell among others so there is precedent but I'm not ready to abandon the free market on this just yet
@oregonblitzkrieg
en. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) unveiled a plan Friday morning to promote competition in the tech sector by breaking up tech giants including Amazon, Google and Facebook.
“Today’s big tech companies have too much power ― too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else,” Warren wrote in a post published on Medium.
“I want a government that makes sure everybody ― even the biggest and most powerful companies in America ― plays by the rules. And I want to make sure that the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish,” she continued. “To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules in their favor and throwing around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor.”
Warren is proposing “two major steps,” she said. The first would be passing legislation that designates certain large tech platforms as utilities that “would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform.” The second would be appointing regulators that would “unwind anti-competitive mergers,” like Amazon and Whole Foods, and Facebook and Instagram.
Interesting because big tech is on the left and works to her advantage. Props for taking a stand that could work against her I guess
The Feds broke up Standard Oil, Ma Bell among others so there is precedent but I'm not ready to abandon the free market on this just yet
@oregonblitzkrieg
Comments
-
When you've lost Sven, you've lost progressive America
-
Fuck that. There's still enough competition in big tech, it's not like there's only one search engine, only one social media platform, only one place to buy goods.
The reason to break up companies is because no competition leads to higher prices and no innovation. We still have competitive prices and tons of innovation. -
These god damn low prices and excellent service are killing us!
-
Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Go out and support your local businesses!1!MikeDamone said:These god damn low prices and excellent service are killing us!
-
Fuck those guysCuntWaffle said:
Go out and support your local businesses!1!MikeDamone said:These god damn low prices and excellent service are killing us!
-
Brilliant point.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Stop using google! Dump your phone! Get off social media!! You show'em!!!
-
Sadly, it's not brilliant. It should be self-evident.SFGbob said:
Brilliant point.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Big tech engages in multiple anti-competitive behaviors. Whether they are broken up or simply restrained from those behaviors is a choice that can be legitimately debated.2001400ex said:Fuck that. There's still enough competition in big tech, it's not like there's only one search engine, only one social media platform, only one place to buy goods.
The reason to break up companies is because no competition leads to higher prices and no innovation. We still have competitive prices and tons of innovation. -
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
I know that makes a nice headline. But it's almost like health Care and tech businesses are completely different things.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
You mean like Bell, Standard Oil and Microsoft?2001400ex said:
I know that makes a nice headline. But it's almost like health Care and tech businesses are completely different things.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
What's your poont?
-
I am just so relieved we have hondo, maritoto and allpurp working so hard to make the world a better place fighting for the little guy. Warms my heart.
-
Those businesses had similar traits that made the government want to break them up. So I'm not sure how they come into the conversation of Government run medical insurance.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Bell, Standard Oil and Microsoft?2001400ex said:
I know that makes a nice headline. But it's almost like health Care and tech businesses are completely different things.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
What's your poont? -
You said, "health Care and tech businesses."2001400ex said:
Those businesses had similar traits that made the government want to break them up. So I'm not sure how they come into the conversation of Government run medical insurance.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Bell, Standard Oil and Microsoft?2001400ex said:
I know that makes a nice headline. But it's almost like health Care and tech businesses are completely different things.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
What's your poont? -
But do they send any of their own money?jecornel said:I am just so relieved we have hondo, maritoto and allpurp working so hard to make the world a better place fighting for the little guy. Warms my heart.
-
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society. -
Holy fuck. I'm surprised I'm surprised.HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society. -
Yes, managing health Care is different than deciding whether a tech business is a monopoly. And?GrundleStiltzkin said:
You said, "health Care and tech businesses."2001400ex said:
Those businesses had similar traits that made the government want to break them up. So I'm not sure how they come into the conversation of Government run medical insurance.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You mean like Bell, Standard Oil and Microsoft?2001400ex said:
I know that makes a nice headline. But it's almost like health Care and tech businesses are completely different things.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
What's your poont? -
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
I was comparing a state monopoly to the private sector. One source for medical reimbursement is markedly more efficient than multiple sources. Medicare is very efficient, for example. Canadian doctors don’t have to devote huge layers of administration to getting paid.UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
A state monopoly could suppress innovation, though its motivation to do so is much more diffuse. And We the People could eliminate a state monopoly that no longer served its purpose. We’ve done so at times with mixed results. -
only in America are these 2 things seen as even close to the same.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Is that supposed to pejorative?dhdawg said:
only in America are these 2 things seen as even close to the same.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare. -
Damone! So many big words. Are you trying to sound smart or just pandering for upvotes??!!MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Imagine caring about this!! -
Just admit you’re wrong and I will gladly have a larger conversation about this.jecornel said:
Damone! So many big words. Are you trying to sound smart or just pandering for upvotes??!!MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
Imagine caring about this!! -
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation? -
No. It’s not. The government has made sure it’s not a competitive environment.HHusky said:
Is that a commentary on the competitive environment health insurance companies currently operate in? Because single payer is demonstrably more efficient than what is going on in the US right now.MikeDamone said:
Third related point - How is a government bureaucracy/monopoly able to deliver lower cost and more customer centric services than a for profit company in a competitive environment?UW_Doog_Bot said:
First point) What do you base this assumption on? What evidence do you have that a state monopoly is either more efficient or different from a private monopoly?HHusky said:
Many things are done more efficiently through a state monopoly or a state granted monopoly than by a lightly regulated market. Single payer is markedly more efficient than what we have now.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Go on, elaborate.HHusky said:
Opposing private monopolies and supporting public monopolies aren’t in conflict.GrundleStiltzkin said:Opposes alleged tech monopolies.
Supports single-payer healthcare.
A private monopoly may be highly efficient and provide a good value to the customer, but the price we pay may also be measured in the suppression of competition by other innovators. Innovation being a hallmark of capitalism, you must agree that suppressing innovation isn’t good for our society.
Second related point) Why do you think a state monopoly doesn't also suppress innovation?
I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
