Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

POLL: Do you support the Democrats' efforts to break up BIG TECH?

Do you support the Democrats' efforts to break up BIG TECH?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support the Democrats' efforts to break up BIG TECH?

    • YES. BIG TECH is a monopolistic threat to our freedom. I support the Democrats' effort to kill BIG TECH!
    • NO. We need BIG TECH to act as a nanny and filter to what we can read and say online. BIG TECH keeps us safe from different opinions. In BIG TECH we trust.


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

We'd be better off if they broke up Big Ag instead. Thatd be a lot more straightforward endeavour too. 

Funny thing... today's big ag is a direct result of trying to break up big ag.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AndroidAggie said:

also it's "imminent"

get a brain moran

no it's not. but that would be a funny joke if it was.

2 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

i'm open to that style of option, yes.

I'm not.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

Funny thing... today's big ag is a direct result of trying to break up big ag.

Big ag isn't really like a bunch of smaller ags under the umbrella of a bigger ag.  It doesn't quite work like a huge company...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WAC_FAN said:

Big ag isn't really like a bunch of smaller ags under the umbrella of a bigger ag.  It doesn't quite work like a huge company...

It depends on where you are... but the fact remains that the systems propping up corporate agriculture, at least in the West and in California, were systems created as progressive reforms against big, corporate power and land monopolization. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

no it's not. but that would be a funny joke if it was.

I'm not.

help me understand the boundaries you have for reasonable govt intervention in monopolistic practices, if any.

under what circumstances would it be suitable to break up big tech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

help me understand the boundaries you have for reasonable govt intervention in monopolistic practices, if any.

under what circumstances would it be suitable to break up big tech?

Not to speak for him, but generally Libertarians are fine with monopolies as long as they are are not suppressing competition through unethical means.  

Which is why I do think Facebook and Alphabet are monopolies.  They maintain control by buying all the other good ideas and making the good idea people rich.  The good idea people generally pray and dream for the day they find out their start up will never amount to anything anybody will ever remember because FB, Alphabet etc... decided they want to own the idea (either to do something with it or keep it out of the market).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Not to speak for him, but generally Libertarians are fine with monopolies as long as they are are not suppressing competition through unethical means.  

Which is why I do think Facebook and Alphabet are monopolies.  They maintain control buy buying all the other good ideas and making the good idea people rich.  The good idea people generally pray and dream for the day they find out their start up will never amount to anything anybody will ever remember because FB, Alphabet etc... decided they want to own the idea (either to do something with it or keep it out of the market).

there may be grey area that's less grey to someone and more grey to another.  i can see how this would be one of those issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

help me understand the boundaries you have for reasonable govt intervention in monopolistic practices, if any.

under what circumstances would it be suitable to break up big tech?

I'm not advocating for breaking up big tech right now. So the burden shouldn't be on me to suggest the circumstances under which I would get on board with busting them up.

I can say for sure that the current circumstances being used as the reason for breaking up big tech (Russian BOTS, misinformation and being mean to Trump, OH MY!) is not one of them. Since those reasons are almost entirely based on content.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I'm not advocating for breaking up big tech right now. So the burden shouldn't be on me to suggest the circumstances under which I would get on board with busting them up.

I can say for sure that the current circumstances being used as the reason for breaking up big tech (Russian BOTS, misinformation and being mean to Trump, OH MY!) is not one of them. Since those reasons are almost entirely based on content.

ok, i'm with you.

it wasn't my intention to put you under burden, per se, but rather attempt to discover where the disagreement between me and thee was, specifically.  i had no counter arguments marshaled in anticipation of what you may say, i was literally like "ok, he's not cool with THIS context...  are there any other contexts he'd be ok with?  if so, which ones?  come to think of it, more generally speaking, what would characterize or parameterize a context in which he'd be ok with government breaking up private enterprise, specifically tech?   is his opposition on principle or application?  or both?"

etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Not to speak for him, but generally Libertarians are fine with monopolies as long as they are are not suppressing competition through unethical means.  

Which is why I do think Facebook and Alphabet are monopolies.  They maintain control by buying all the other good ideas and making the good idea people rich.  The good idea people generally pray and dream for the day they find out their start up will never amount to anything anybody will ever remember because FB, Alphabet etc... decided they want to own the idea (either to do something with it or keep it out of the market).

 

I would take it a step further and say generally monopolies exist as the result of collusion between the most powerful interests and the state. Monopolies are as much a result of state power as they are a result of corporate power. That's why government intervention usually does one of two things... it either makes the corporate power more powerful by writing the new rules to favor their circumstances, or it allows that powerful corporate interest to maintain a small hold on power for a little bit longer until the next innovation changes the entire playing field and makes it completely irrelevant. Like I said before, the government didn't kill the railroads' stranglehold on transportation... the internal combustion engine did. 

Right now, facebook and alphabet are not monopolies because you can go somewhere else if you want right now to get the exact same kinds of services... especially the services we're talking about right now, which is the dissemination of political media. Tryin to break them up will make the marketplace less competitive and allow them to maintain some sort of relevance longer than would have been the case if you would have just let them go the way of any other bloated, out-of-touch company.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

ok, i'm with you.

it wasn't my intention to put you under burden, per se, but rather attempt to discover where the disagreement between me and thee was, specifically.  i had no counter arguments marshaled in anticipation of what you may say, i was literally like "ok, he's not cool with THIS context...  are there any other contexts he'd be ok with?  if so, which ones?  come to think of it, more generally speaking, what would characterize or parameterize a context in which he'd be ok with government breaking up private enterprise, specifically tech?   is his opposition on principle or application?  or both?"

etc

I'd say it's both.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

ok, i'm with you.

it wasn't my intention to put you under burden, per se, but rather attempt to discover where the disagreement between me and thee was, specifically.  i had no counter arguments marshaled in anticipation of what you may say, i was literally like "ok, he's not cool with THIS context...  are there any other contexts he'd be ok with?  if so, which ones?  come to think of it, more generally speaking, what would characterize or parameterize a context in which he'd be ok with government breaking up private enterprise, specifically tech?   is his opposition on principle or application?  or both?"

etc

I would say this... when the company is literally functioning as a defacto version of the state, it's reasonable for the state to intervene. I'm not an AnCap guy. I don't think Apple or Google or Facebook or Twitter are the British East India Company right now, though. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I would say this... when the company is literally functioning as a defacto version of the state, it's reasonable for the state to intervene. I'm not an AnCap guy. I don't think Apple or Google or Facebook or Twitter are the British East India Company right now, though. 

The british gov't after they made the tea act and allowed the colonists to  import tea only from the british east india company - Dr Evil and Henchmen  laughing - and then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I would take it a step further and say generally monopolies exist as the result of collusion between the most powerful interests and the state. Monopolies are as much a result of state power as they are a result of corporate power. That's why government intervention usually does one of two things... it either makes the corporate power more powerful by writing the new rules to favor their circumstances, or it allows that powerful corporate interest to maintain a small hold on power for a little bit longer until the next innovation changes the entire playing field and makes it completely irrelevant. Like I said before, the government didn't kill the railroads' stranglehold on transportation... the internal combustion engine did. 

Right now, facebook and alphabet are not monopolies because you can go somewhere else if you want right now to get the exact same kinds of services... especially the services we're talking about right now, which is the dissemination of political media. Tryin to break them up will make the marketplace less competitive and allow them to maintain some sort of relevance longer than would have been the case if you would have just let them go the way of any other bloated, out-of-touch company.

 

I can't go anywhere else and get what facebook provides.  I'm fine with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

I can't go anywhere else and get what facebook provides.  I'm fine with it.

 

There's a difference between having a proprietary version of a service and a monopoly. My understanding is that facebook is a place to gather information (largely media and commentary) and a place to communicate with other people. I don't have facebook and I'm able to do those things. So I would argue that it's not a monopoly. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

There's a difference between having a proprietary version of a service and a monopoly. My understanding is that facebook is a place to gather information (largely media and commentary) and a place to communicate with other people. I don't have facebook and I'm able to do those things. So I would argue that it's not a monopoly. 

I mean it is that.  It's a place to easily stay in contact and keep up with "all" your friends and family through a "feed" and reminders.  Nothing else really like that.  Others have come up with similar services, and no myspace is not a similar service, and Facebook buys the patents immediately.  Friendfeed, friendster, sharegrove, friendly the list of ones you will never hear of like that is very, very long.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...