Democrats Plan To Bombard Big Tech With Series of Antitrust Bills (axios.com) 99
The powerful Democrat overseeing antitrust legislation wants to hit Big Tech with the legislative equivalent of a swarm of drones rather than a single, hulking battleship that would be simpler to defeat. From a report: In an interview with Axios on Sunday, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said he didn't want to give the major technology companies and their armies of lobbyists the easy target of a massive antitrust bill. Instead, in his role running the House Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel, he plans to craft a series of smaller bills -- perhaps 10 or more -- that will be ready in May.
The way Cicilline sees it, this small-target strategy achieves two goals: He has a better chance of finding common ground between Democrats and Republicans on more narrowly targeted issues. And he makes it harder for Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google to mobilize quickly against reforms they don't like. "If you look at the way these technology companies have staffed up with their lobbying and the money they're investing in Washington, it's designed ... to prevent any changes to the current ecosystem that benefits them enormously," Cicilline told Axios. "They have literally billions and billions and billions of reasons to try to protect the current system because it produces ... profits not seen on planet Earth." Recognizing this reality, Cicilline said his intention is to use this range of bills to advance all the recommendations in his panel's 450-page investigation into competition in the digital marketplace.
The way Cicilline sees it, this small-target strategy achieves two goals: He has a better chance of finding common ground between Democrats and Republicans on more narrowly targeted issues. And he makes it harder for Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google to mobilize quickly against reforms they don't like. "If you look at the way these technology companies have staffed up with their lobbying and the money they're investing in Washington, it's designed ... to prevent any changes to the current ecosystem that benefits them enormously," Cicilline told Axios. "They have literally billions and billions and billions of reasons to try to protect the current system because it produces ... profits not seen on planet Earth." Recognizing this reality, Cicilline said his intention is to use this range of bills to advance all the recommendations in his panel's 450-page investigation into competition in the digital marketplace.
Re: Take profits from this and spectrum auction, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> nationonalize Starlink and provide ubiquitous broadband internet to all citizens.
This is what happens when you have emotional knee-jerk reactions to adult problems. Starlink uses spot beam technology with clear line of sight. It isn't even suitable for dense urban populations. Yet somehow we hear someone doing something productive, so socialists have to tear it down.
> This isn't so hard people, is it?
Nope. Being a lazy arm chair communist is about as easy as it gets.
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Well... (Score:1, Troll)
No tech liberal bias, but evidence bias instead! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes, that pesky liberal bias of REALITY.
Yes. Techies are not liberal. As a guy with Asperger's I notice very autistic values throughout tech. Most of us are atheists with no values. The modern difference between what you call conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives of 2021 operate on faith, not reality....the "liberals" for you are just anyone who doesn't follow your beliefs. Your conservatives apply faith to politics, not even religious faith...just that you live in the reality of your choosing and no evidence can sway your beliefs. Want examples? Election fraud...DJT MUST have been robbed. There's no way that a guy polling at 40% throughout his presidency could have lost. Q...the elites form a secret cabal to keep the rest of us down, among other things. Trickle down economics...we've tried it many times. Give tax rebates to the wealthy and you really don't get as much back if you trickled up stimulus. The problem with 2021 conservatives is they hold beliefs...when reality doesn't align with their beliefs, they shoot the messenger instead of reconsidering their beliefs....no one likes my idea about "illegals?"...well, that's not that my idea is racist or economically stupid...it can't be...it must be a liberal bias...in tech, media, academia, etc...oh, and Hillary Clinton drinks baby blood! My views are rock-solid, everyone in my facebook group agrees, so everyone who disagrees must be part of a vast liberal conspiracy!
:) If he's smart, he'll keep his mouth shut, knowing the activist will go away after awhile, but yeah most of us aren't that smart and will speak up and say..."well...actually, they're the same as far as I am concerned since I am already married and not a professional female athlete, but certainly there is genetic difference, reproductive differences, as well as developmental differences, depending on when they transitioned that do constitute a tangible difference." Nutty twitter feminist extremists, for example, would hate being around tech workers. When they cry about the oppression of educated white middle class women, as an example, they get quite upset when asked for evidence. We're not liberal. We just believe in reality.
Engineers, in contrast, are scientific and evidence based. Tell us that DJT would have won if not for election fraud, we'll ask for evidence...something his own team failed to present to a single court, including ones of judges he appointed. Tell us that tax cuts to the 1% will stimulate the economy, we'll ask for evidence. We'll want to see the numbers, not take the Republican Party at their word.
Similarly, engineers run afoul of liberal orthodoxy constantly. For example, the far left's views on Trans pronouns. While most engineers don't want to be an asshole and persecute trans people...ask an engineer to sit quietly while some activist tells him "Trans women are NO different than CIS women"...watch him squirm.
Another example, I and many in tech, believe in UBI. I believe it will have a positive economic impact for the entire country. If it was implemented in another country or a large region and the data showed the opposite, I would change my views. I would be disappointed that an idea I believed so strongly in failed, but I'd move on and find a belief that fits reality, not complain that the world is biased against me. I used to be a Republican when I was young...I like small government. The debt incurred during the GWB presidency and the consistent trend of excessive spending on the part of the Republicans made me change my mind. My dad always told me Democrats were irresponsible with money and Republicans were always cleaning up their mess. When I saw evidence of the contrary, I changed my vote. Most of the tech sector is like me. They have beliefs and when reality doesn't align with our beliefs, we adjust them to fit reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points. Well stated.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the election fraud claims of the right go, it boggles the mind that you just don't get it. It isn't the result
Re: (Score:1)
Why didn't his own judges hear him out? (Score:2)
Here's the thing. You're making these desperate claims about election fraud and there's a massive conspiracy to cover it up. The concerns of the Trump legal team were nonsense and they were comically inept. If there was credible evid
Re: Why didn't his own judges hear him out? (Score:1)
Re: Never go full Trumper. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Too many conservatives have been taught to trust their "gut" over evidence and subject matter experts. In my family's evangelical-style religion, you are encouraged to "pray about it". You then allegedly get "inspiration from the lord to guide you". This is often given priority above objective research and critical thinking. It's why religion is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands: your "visions" can override vast reality if you convince enough people you are blessed.
Re: No tech liberal bias, but evidence bias instea (Score:3, Funny)
You ask for evidence, of which there was a metric fuckton. Not one of Trumps lawsuits were thrown out for lack of evidence. Instead they were hit with laches or thrown out because he "conceded", apparently by not forcing the military to drag him out of the White House on Jan 20th. Indeed, of 30+ election lawsuits only two were thrown out because of any lack of evidence. As an engineer, that should scare the shit out of you. The fact that a company would continue to produce a product with a fatal design fla
So what evidence do you have? (Score:2)
You ask for evidence, of which there was a metric fuckton.
What evidence was there of voter fraud? What evidence was there that there was significant voter fraud? What evidence was there that there was enough to sway the election?
You claim to have evidence of this, but you presented none. This is why the tech industry isn't aboard the MAGA train. DJT polled at 40%, was deeply unpopular, and his opposition mobilized effectively. That's a classic election loss.
My biggest issue with people like you is your refusal to adjust for reality. Instead of saying
Re: (Score:2)
You ask for evidence, of which there was a metric fuckton. Not one of Trumps lawsuits were thrown out for lack of evidence
What color is the sky in your world? Is it "blue" or "socialist"?
Also, you realize there's no requirement that evidence must be presented only at trial, right? If there was that fuckton of evidence, Trump and company could provide it to everyone. They've failed to do that too.
Why? Because they don't actually have any evidence. What they do have is plenty of innuendo, and even more failures to read election procedures, much less understand them. Oh, and there's also the lying.
re: Reasonably well stated, but .... (Score:3)
"Most of us are atheists with no values"? I have a really difficult time with that comment. I consider myself basically one and am in the tech industry ... but I most definitely still have values. I think the idea that atheists don't is EXACTLY why many religious people take issue with being atheist.
There's a mistaken preconception that if you don't embrace some sort of religion, you must not have learned any ethics or sense of morality. You don't have a conscience.
I know many atheists who still believe i
Could have been stated better (Score:3)
"Most of us are atheists with no values"? I have a really difficult time with that comment. I consider myself basically one and am in the tech industry ... but I most definitely still have values. I think the idea that atheists don't is EXACTLY why many religious people take issue with being atheist.
There's a mistaken preconception that if you don't embrace some sort of religion, you must not have learned any ethics or sense of morality. You don't have a conscience.
You're right, I could have stated that better. I, and most atheists, have values. What I should have said is that we're pragmatists with little ideology. We're not liberal. We're not conservative. Most of us vote logically. If we thought Republicans would do a better job, we'd vote for them. Nearly all of us see the DJT presidency as an objective failure, so we voted for his opponent. It's not a liberal bias, it's the "What have you done for me lately?" question...the Janet Jackson principle. As soo
To Quote Janet Jackson... (Score:2)
Nearly all of us see the DJT presidency as an objective failure
Most likely you just succumbed to the slashdot and reddit hive mind, and grew accustomed to believing it was a failure, without any real objective thought put into it at all. Atheists are perfectly capable of falling into the same pitfalls as the right-wing crowd is.
...What have you done for me lately?
This is why it's so fucking depressing, anonymous coward. Instead of thinking...hmm, this guy isn't impressed with us, let me tell you about how DJT's administration made YOUR life better...you just (attempt to) insult me.
Do you feel better now?
Oh, you called me slashdot and hive mind...well, I don't want to be part of a hive mind, so please, where can I sign up for your MAGA group? How can I get one of those cool red caps that when people see they think...man,
Re: (Score:2)
The whole pronouns issue isn't that complicated. You just have to update your definitions.
gender: social role. Increasingly fuzzy and irrelevant, and mainly pertaining to a pronoun preference for practical purposes. Think of for instance being referred to as "kid" while being 35. Some people might not mind. Some might take offense. It's purely social stuff not truly based in anything objective. Some people don't care about formality, some want to be addressed as "Mr. Smith" and not "dude".
sex: biology, of n
Pronouns and trans people == not being asshole (Score:3)
The whole pronouns issue isn't that complicated. You just have to update your definitions.
There's mainstream acceptance of trans people and there's nutsos on Twitter who fall in the far left category. For the mainstream, yes, I nor anyone I know who isn't an asshole has no problem calling a transwoman "her" or "she." For nutsos, we need to invent new words like "xe" of which, I and most will say "fuck you." Pick a pronoun from our existing ones and I'll call you whatever you like.
You're correct, about it not being relevant. I have a trans woman on my team. She's actually quite hot, but I
Re: (Score:2)
Language evolves, and English more so than most; Shakespeare lived only a few hundred years ago, and most people find it very difficult to understand his writing now. Even English pronouns have changed; we lost the familiar second person singular (thou, thee, thy, thine, thyself) even more recently than Shakespeare, but picked up a second person plural (y'all) that's been steadily gaining in popularity.
If people want to try to create new pronouns, I don't have a problem with it -- in fact, for reasons I ne
But is it a priority? (Score:2)
Language evolves, and English more so than most; Shakespeare lived only a few hundred years ago, and most people find it very difficult to understand his writing now. Even English pronouns have changed; we lost the familiar second person singular (thou, thee, thy, thine, thyself) even more recently than Shakespeare, but picked up a second person plural (y'all) that's been steadily gaining in popularity.
If people want to try to create new pronouns, I don't have a problem with it -- in fact, for reasons I need not delve into here, I'd love a gender neutral honorific to take root -- like Mx. or Mz. instead of Mr. and Ms. -- but it'll have to come about organically. It does no harm for people to try new things and run them up the flagpole.
It actually does. In a perfect world, you're correct, I can learn new words as can the rest of the world, but you can't force change on people too fast...that's how reactionaries like DJT win. It's like gay marriage. For us in the US, it seems so obvious now, but in the early 90s, it was strange territory. Don't Ask Don't Tell was progressive for its day and regressive today. Gay marriage was unthinkable in the early 90s, even among my gay friends. Now it's just no big deal. Even conservatives have
You really got that one wrong. (Score:2)
So make everyone ok with something before introducing them to it is what you're saying. If people like you were around we'd still not have integrated schools, interracial marriage or gay rights. The nation wasn't "ready" for any of these things, we *forced them through*. It caused riots. It caused disorder. Hell, a large swathe of the nation wasn't "ready" to end slavery. That caused a civil war.
You're a "don't rock the boat, 'cause I'm alright" reactionary. Never mind that people are being killed for being trans. Never mind that kids are committing suicide. You're not "ready" for change. That's all that matters.
Yeah, pick on the guy on your side because he's more concerned about winning than making a statement.
Dude...you rock the boat too fast and too much, you get reactionaries to win elections. Bill Clinton could have demanded gay marriage equality in the 90s and Bob Dole would have won in a landslide. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a bit demeaning, but it led to gay marriage equality 20 later. It turned homosexuality from a perversion to a lifestyle choice for most of America.
I'm not arguing we shouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
you can't force change on people too fast
Nothing is being forced. But maintaining old attitudes is itself reactionary.
in the early 90s
I recognize that on the Internet no one can tell that you're a dog, but you probably could've guessed from my UID number that I am not a kid. I vividly remember the early 90s.
not a conversation the nation is ready to have
1) As the other poster says, they never will be. You can't just wait around, or nothing will change. But 2) There's little need for a conversation. Follow the golden rule, treat people as you would be treated by others, and don't meddle, and you'll be fine.
Also, the more time we're talking about pronouns
L
Winning matters more than making a statement (Score:2)
Also, the more time we're talking about pronouns
Little time or effort is going into this. Again, if you're merely respectful and polite toward other people, there is not much more to say or do on that front.
But your single-minded focus on this seems rather telling.
I think there might be some miscommunication. Calling a trans person by their preferred pronouns...that's just basic respect. All should do that. Inventing NEW pronouns to satisfy narcissistic "nonbinary" people? We don't need Xe or anything similar. I honestly don't care. I can learn it, but I think you take for granted how narrow Joe Biden's victory was, how the Republicans GAINED house seats. A huge, winning campaign theme for Republicans in red and purple states is political correctness. How ba
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need Xe or anything similar.
People who advocate for it can use it. Either it'll catch on organically or it won't. Nothing's being mandated, and I fail to see how anything could be (other than the government directing its own employees). Simple freedom of speech allows people to use or decline to use whatever pronouns they like.
We reliably vote blue
I'm quite familiar with Massachusetts and Somerville and waiting forever to get brunch at the Neighborhood on the weekend and the state's unfortunate habit of electing Republican governors. Other than Deval
RTFA (Score:2)
Techies are not liberal ... (remainder of rant describes left-wing ideas author claims "engineers" hold near and dear)
None of the points listed in parent post will be addressed by Cicilline's committee. He's all about targeting Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon with anti-monopoly legislation. Especially Facebook, because as any engineer will tell you, it was Russian meddling on Facebook that resulted in Hillary losing the election.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The real question is why does the party of big business and free market have such a small footprint in the tech industry? From my perspective it seems like they're too concerned with women getting abortions and Applebee's operating at 100% capacity.
Re: (Score:1)
The real question is why does the party of big business and free market have such a small footprint in the tech industry? From my perspective it seems like they're too concerned with women getting abortions and Applebee's operating at 100% capacity.
If you think either political party actually wants to deal with "modern" ideals, I've got a red-headed bastard stepchild of a progressive politician to saddle you with.
Re: (Score:3)
They would have voted for stimulus checks had the gargantuan spending bill been just about stimulus checkes.
Their votes for previous stimulus programs that were not "just about stimulus checks" says otherwise.
The citizens of the USA could have had these checks, or something close to it, during 2020...if only the Democrats had focused on just getting the checks out.
The Senate can introduce legislation, or propose changes to legislation that passes the House. Republicans had all they needed to produce a "checks only" bill in 2020. Trump even called for one. The Republican-controlled Senate did nothing. No Senate bill, nor did they amend the bill that passed the House.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the House sent about $2.5T of passed relief bills to the Senate which they could have voted on, amended or as you mentioned sent their own bill down to the House.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlikely. They bills will more likely mandate stifling of unpopular ideologies, codifying in law the current liberal bias in big tech. They will be able to mandate moderation in ways they wish, watch. Fascists love fascism. The left will silence all but their own ideas.
Liberals are about to launch a suite of anti trust probes into big tech and you think big tech will be so happy about that they'll start lobbying for "codifying in law the current liberal bias in big tech"? You are either smoking something real funky or you are the world's worst troll.
Re: (Score:3)
It raises the barrier to entry. Those laws will not shut down or meaningfully impact existing large companies. Sure they have to hire a couple extra bodies for their compliance department and you may get an extra mandatory slideshow for employees. If you watched the Section 230 hearings on CSPAN, you'd see every social media CEO very eagerly wanting more Section 230 reform and
Libertarians (Score:2)
"Big Tech" is mostly libertarian, and not progressive. The right-wing media calls them "liberal" because they don't share their view on gender, race, and LGBTQ relations. It's a hallmark of libertarianism to allow people to wear whatever they want and hump whoever the hell they want. Otherwise, big tech is against taxes and business regulation in general.
Re:Libertarians (Score:4, Interesting)
The hallmark of libertarianism is raping the Commons because its adherents think that Commons is free for anyone to use up. That's how we get pollution, global warming, and white nationalist groups claiming they can do whatever they like.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not putting a value judgement on libertarians, only saying that the right-wing media often misclassifies "big tech".
Like any political classification, individuals will define or adhere to the category differently. Many libertarians believe that gov't should protect "basic rights", but what's considered a basic right varies.
In general, big-tech tends to side with progressives on social issues and conservatives on economic issues. "Libertarian" is the best common description for this pattern, even if not
Re: (Score:2)
"The hallmark of libertarianism is raping the Commons because its adherents think that Commons is free for anyone to use up. That's how we get pollution, global warming, and white nationalist groups claiming they can do whatever they like."
Another quote I have a really big issue with. Many, many libertarian-minded people I know absolutely do care about the environment and the "Commons". The real question here is if central government mandates are really the only or best way to solve these issues.
When I he
Re: (Score:2)
When I hear talk of anything along the lines of "carbon credits" and taxes or fees, I know it's a poor attempt at a solution. (You're expecting government can collect all the fees people owe to repair the amount of environmental damage they did, and it will get equitably and efficiently applied to reverse the proportional amount of damage done? Ha!)
Obviously not. The goal isn't to use the fees to repair the damage, it's just to make the polluter pay (approximately) the cost they're imposing on society. What society spends that money on is irrelevant. Economists call such exploitation of the commons "externalities", and the goal is just to "internalize" the externalities, make it so the polluter is paying the full freight and incorporating that into their decisions and pricing.
And while it's obvious that no such scheme will ever be perfect, nothing
re: making the polluter pay (Score:2)
"The goal isn't to use the fees to repair the damage, it's just to make the polluter pay (approximately) the cost they're imposing on society."
If that's not the goal, then you're just wasting people's hard-earned money. Whether they're a "polluter" or not, they still run a profitable business of some sort, that is only viable because they're actively providing a service or product that other people desire. If you're not going to even attempt to collect any additional fees placed on them for the purpose of
Re: (Score:3)
The left will silence all but their own ideas.
Psst... nobody's forgotten the MAGA attempts to shut down Tik Tock and to make Facebook & Co. liable for user-submitted libel.
You know, you lot COULD have spent four years leading by example....
Re: (Score:2)
This, 100%. Besides, R’s won’t applaud government intervention in corporations since it comes at the cost of innovation and jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose this means the Republicans can cheer up, the 'well known liberal bias' of big tech is about to spontaneously morph into the 'well known conservative bias' of big tech like a vampire in a cheap horror film morphing into a bat in a puff of smoke.
Interesting take ... a more straightforward one might be "big tech wasn't quite obedient enough, let's be explicit in our control".
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Moves like that deserve anti-trust, and there are so many examples of Amazon doing this that they are gonna get their asses kicked for it. Not that it will matter. A one time fine that amounts to nothing for amazon is hardly going to make them blink an eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know why you were moderated flamebait. But to me this looks like a fund-raiser and big-tech now has the $.
But both Rep and Dems do this, last year the Rep were going after them, now the dems.
Going after Facebook, google and the like will accomplish nothing and give us (people) no benefit. If they were real serious they would go after Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other providers like them and force real change to lower rates.
Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and anti-monopoly you may be about to get.
No special reason to believe that you'll get Net Neutrality or privacy. It's not like the D's are especially fond of either, they just get excited about different examples of privacy. And define Net Neutrality to favour them, rather than the way the R's define Net Neutrality (which definition favours the R's).
Re: (Score:2)
But we did get good regulation with Tom Wheeler at the head of the FCC during the Obama admin. It wasn't everything but it was a far cry better than what we had gotten with Ajit Pai in charge.
If Jessica Rosenworcel is confirmed to be the actual commissioner she has already voiced support for NN so while not "great" things under the Democrats could get "better".
Cycles (Score:2)
Start here then... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The right wing wants to go after Social Media so they can assert control, the left wing wants to control fake news (which overwhelmingly benefits the right).
For the left these days it's far more about controlling what gets printed. If anything.
The MSM can't seem to recall a damn thing related to Hunter Biden right about now. Scary thing about these latest dementia variants, being contagious and all...
For the left it's about economic policy (Score:3)
Look up the top political posts on Facebook. Whatch MSNBC's coverage of Medicare for All and Unions. There's 3 far right 24/7 cable news networks, and the far right dominate talk radio to the point where there isn't a single le
Re: (Score:3)
The Right absolutely owns Facebook. From the FacebookTop10 Twitter which tracks this daily
The top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages in the last 24 hours are from:
1. Ben Shapiro
2. Fox News
3. ForAmerica
4. Fox News
5. Ben Shapiro
6. Fox News
7. CNN
8. Fox News
9. Newsmax
10. Ben Shapiro
And this is far from an anomaly, Right wing media regularly dominates FB week over week.
Re:For the left it's about economic policy (Score:4, Interesting)
That sounds like the Right dominate usage of the platform, not the politics of the platform itself. You would expect them to fall in line with each other (why would users use a service with politics they disagree with), but it's entirely possible that one group feels more locked-in and unable to migrate/learn another tool despite not agreeing with company politics.
TLDR; Facebook is trying to retain young users and make a lot of left-leaning policy decisions despite being mostly used by older right leaning people unable to figure out newer platforms.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook's leadership is absolutely in favor of the right wing news sources on their platform with reports of Zuckerberg himself intervening in policy decisions about them.
"Mark Changed The Rules": How Facebook Went Easy On Alex Jones And Other Right-Wing Figures [buzzfeednews.com]
I would imagine since Facebook's demographics is leaning older year over year those users are either not aware of Facebooks perception of having a "left-leaning" bias, they don't care because their favorite right-wing sources dominate the platform o
Re: (Score:2)
...or simply right-wing users are simply the most profitable from an advertising perspective.
Bingo. Glad to see someone bring up the obvious.
Facebook cares about profit. They care about as much as a defense contractor does with any "war" raging online. They'll happily sell to both sides.
And Facebooks "demographics"? That's funny considering they're growing to be the world's largest digital cemetery. Wonder how many advertisers will be sold bot eyes and zombie clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
The top-performing link posts by U.S. Facebook pages in the last 24 hours are from:
1. Ben Shapiro
2. Fox News
3. ForAmerica
4. Fox News
5. Ben Shapiro
6. Fox News
7. CNN
8. Fox News
9. Newsmax
10. Ben Shapiro
And this is far from an anomaly, Right wing media regularly dominates FB week over week.
That sounds like the Right dominate usage of the platform, not the politics of the platform itself. You would expect them to fall in line with each other (why would users use a service with politics they disagree with), but it's entirely possible that one group feels more locked-in and unable to migrate/learn another tool despite not agreeing with company politics.
TLDR; Facebook is trying to retain young users and make a lot of left-leaning policy decisions despite being mostly used by older right leaning people unable to figure out newer platforms.
That sounds like conservatives are full of shit when they claim Facebook, 'censors', 'shadow-bans', 'persecutes' and 'silences' them #ConservativeVictimhood
What's the difference? (Score:2)
You guys always pretend you're put upon when you're always in charge because you've got the backing of Big Money. It's freaking hilarious. You're like Kings complaining their subjects oppress them. Oh Woe is me, I am woe!
Re: (Score:2)
TLDR; Facebook is trying to retain young users and make a lot of left-leaning policy decisions despite being mostly used by older right leaning people unable to figure out newer platforms.
I would have believed you if you gave damn near any other excuse, because "unable to figure out" smells like complete bullshit.
It's social media, spoon fed through an web browser/app. Toddlers can figure that shit out, and easily do.
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody lives in a bubble.
I don't need to prove you wrong, you need to backup your claims :)
You could go look at the many studies that rank different media companies and their biases, instead of making random assertions.
Re: (Score:2)
But her emails...
But Benghazi....
But his laptop....
The real story is there is no story. The FBI has had the evidence for over a year now and haven't said a word. So either nothing is wrong or this is a massive case taking years of investigating. Which seems more likely?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm mostly convinced its a cheap shot at an obvious symbol of wealth instead of a legitimate effort to do something about income inequality.
Thanks to the synergy between standardizations and scale, the tech industry seems to be more prone to monopolistic behavior, but sometimes the standards that result make the monopolistic behavior less pernicious than, say, a monopoly supplier of a raw material.
I also think your take on controlling big tech for other political angles (disinformation, etc) are other motiv
Re: (Score:1)
It's not either-or. They could go after both.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they want big tech ... (Score:2, Troll)
to bombard them with a lot of campaign contributions and research grants.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to mention extortion seems to be the real goal of too many proposed laws/bills.
Unfortunatly too many here take the view that if someone points out the obvious then you are a saint or satan depending on the party introducing the extortion, I mean bill.
THAT is unfortunate, it's sad that the impacts of these bills are being judged via emotion here (by many, not all) rather than by their content.
I'm just asking for a little less political hyperbole here, this stuff matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what have you done for us lately? (Score:2)
We donated tons to you! We silenced your political opponents before an election! What more do yiu want from us?!?!?
"Yes, but what have you done for us lately?"
Antitrust (Score:2)
Break those big monopolistic tech giants into smaller entities. Now you have more enemies.
WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong
Regulation = Regulatory Capture = Less Competition (Score:2)
Look at what happened with GDPR in Europe. Granted it was a step in the right direction, however given the amount of new regulation, many smaller companies could not keep up:
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/... [cnn.com]
https://www.trendmicro.com/vin... [trendmicro.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
Look at any list that of GDPR affected companies. Not a single "big tech" service would be there. They can spend "pocket money" (i.e.: a few million dollars) on compliance, and make some lawyers happy. However small
built in (Score:2)
Building search and social media into the fabric of internet hardware and protocols will undermine Google and Facebook and democratise the internet.
Bills summarized (Score:2)
Power and control (Score:2)
This is so the Democrats can exert control over them. Any attempts by future Republican governments to wind back these controls will be widely reported as "Republicans want Neo Nazi White Supremacists to take over social media again!".