> Her proposal also includes a plan to pass legislation that would prohibit platform owners with more than $25 billion in revenue to participate on their platforms as well. This policy would largely affect companies like Amazon that both run a sales platform and sell their own products on the site.
Seems like this proposal is essentially just anti-trust legislation. I'm all for it. What I particularly like about it is that she's demonstrating her commitment to the citizenry, not to the Democratic party. She's not only going after coal companies or traditional (R) strongholds. She's taking on tech, a left-leaning industry, too. This is the type of bipartisanship I think we need to see in candidates and politicians.
Her policies that are on the news are breaking up Google and reducing income inequality.
Both are dubious and shouldn't be her first priorities.
I can elaborate:
1. Breaking up Google doesn't sound like the biggest problem right now. How about Comcast? How about Equifax? Those are monopolies and act in bad faith. Why is Google the top of her list?
2. Income inequality is not an important goal. I don't care if Bezos has 100 trillion dollars. I want affordable healthcare, education and a good life.
Other real monopolies that actually technically meet the definition of monopolies have needed attention for years and she decides to go after a web search engine.
I remember there was a chart online show how at&t was broken up by the government for being a monopoly and then showing the parts slowly reconstituting themselves back together
Google ceased to be a "web search engine" over fifteen years ago.
Life as we know it depends on Google's products and services more than we ever did on Microsoft. They have Search, OS, Browser, Device and Service under one brand. Not to mention analytics and advertising on those properties and systems.
Taking advantage of that position at the expense of participants/customers is wrong and should be prevented.
That's what monopoly busting is about - AT&T, MSFT, Alphabet/Google, makes no difference.
You can apply the same principles to health care, credit and for profit colleges. She does.
It's a big campaign issue (for Warren, and simultaneously not really a big campaign issue otherwise) because Warren is far behind the leading candidates, in a distant third or fourth place depending on the poll, so she's trying to use big concrete policy proposals like this to gain traction.
> Why not break up Walmart while we're at it?
She has other policies that would target Walmart, too.
Using GMail while advocating breaking up some anti-competitive/monopolistic practices/companies isn't hypocrisy.
It's using a singular product to do what that singular product doe; which is fine. I can advocate Johnson and Johnson be fined for anti-competitive practices and still buy a stupid band-aid without abandoning my morals. Why would an email provider be any different?
Perhaps someone trying to radically change the way company X does business, in ways the leaders of said business aren't going to like... shouldn't store (or even transmit) their private correspondence about it using the services of the company.
I mean, that would _normally_ be common sense. Seems weird to even have to point this out.
Before she can fulfill ant campaign promises like that, her campaign email will have fulfilled its purpose, anyway. So even if that were a likely outcome, I don't see why it would be a concern.
Seems like this proposal is essentially just anti-trust legislation. I'm all for it. What I particularly like about it is that she's demonstrating her commitment to the citizenry, not to the Democratic party. She's not only going after coal companies or traditional (R) strongholds. She's taking on tech, a left-leaning industry, too. This is the type of bipartisanship I think we need to see in candidates and politicians.