1. The big tech companies are not true monopolies. They simply offer a better service than current competitors. It's hardly set in stone that Facebook, for instance, will continue to hold it's majority in social networking.
2. I'd trust a large company like Google who has stronger data protection policies in place than the smaller alternative also in the same space.
3. Breaking up or regulating more strongly distracts some of the most productive and innovative companies.
1) the network effect and critical mass make it next to impossible to gain any kind of foothold: your product must be better feature-wise, and it must have the same people or interface with the old—something Facebook has no interest in (look at Ello, G+, orkut, etc). Replacing Facebook wholesale with a "better product" has huge risk;
2) when companies can take into the economy of scale, they can start making money off of aspects that are not profitable at smaller scales (think usage data, advertising analytics, etc). I could see how limiting the size, or breaking up "predatory" businesses as a potential hard-line solution;
3) the most "productive and innovative" companies are looking to either carve parts of Facebook off into new products (think how airBNB, tindr, etc, essentially came from Craigslist's boards, but now targeted) or something tangential that can leverage Facebook, the difference here being that Facebook is far more aggressive at maintaining its moat and has a more financial interest in it (they must maintain there current company size/status). It seems that even when Facebook does something poorly (events? buy-and-sell?), they can use their network effect (1) to their ultimate advantage.
1) Gaining critical mass is definitely a barrier to entry for competition. I'm just less sold that Facebook's current popularity is not due to it's foothold in the space vs it's utility.
2) Economy of scale is what allows these companies to offer their services to me as 'free'. I don't really mind that Facebook or Google have taken something that is useless to me (my personal browsing history, locations, likes, etc) and found a way to monetize it if I get to use their platform for free in return.
3) I'm not sure that breaking up big tech would significantly discourage their 'moat maintaining' behavior. If anything, with additional competition introduced, wouldn't there be even more incentive to put time and resource into maintaining what majority they have?
1) Yeah, hard to say. If it's utility, building a product that can compete with _all_ of Facebook right out of the door seems quite difficult. You'd be constantly battling the network effect as you built up the software to match their use cases—worse, you'd be spreading yourself thin right when you should be focusing on your 'core' product.
2) I'd be more okay with it, if they were more upfront about it maybe? But again, like point one, probably something that I feel affinity towards. I do often have problems with "free" products that really are not... I suppose it's not like they're trumpeting the cost lead.
3) That's a valid question eh? It's difficult to know, when other large firms were broken up long ago it was under an entirely different environment. I'd like to think that the previous players, in order to continue to interoperate with eachother (because, advantages), would implement some kind of protocol to do so: essentially opening up the platform so pieces that don't overlap can still work together—or allow you to pick and choose those pieces. But, complex, and regulatory forcing of a business to 'do-work' is often a non-starter... so who knows how that'd end up.
Which is fair.
I greatly object to this myself. If I could avoid being spied on simply by avoiding using their services, then I wouldn't get so angry about this. But I can't avoid it without going to rather extreme (and not entirely sufficient) measures.
There are two sides to this "data protection" thing, though. One side is how secure a company keeps the data it has. The other side is how secure your data is from that company.
Balancing the two meanings of "data protection", I personally much prefer the smaller alternative over companies like Google, Facebook, etc.
Which is very obvious when they have to mention a multitude that need breaking up instead of just one or two.
On the other hand even my tech illiterate family members would like to see Comcast taken down a few pegs.
"Imagine Facebook and Instagram trying to outdo each other to protect your privacy and keep misinformation out of your feed, instead of working together to sell your data, inundate you with misinformation, and undermine our election security. That's why we need to #BreakUpBigTech."
It isn't too difficult to articulate why the average voter might be interested in it.
This feels like an unrealistic fantasy. If it hasn't been the case for FB vs Twitter vs Snap, what makes her think adding IG back into the mix will?
Will breaking Facebook up have any benefit? Probably not, but there's bipartisan support for doing something.
I'm in the group of people who thinks that Facebook is a huge problem, but I don't think the problem is that they're silencing anybody, left or right.
She's running in a primary election. "Build the wall" never crossed 50% in a general poll either, but it was still a winning argument.
1. is that really true? I don't see it myself.
2. splitting up Facebook would not suddenly mean there are no jobs in tech. If anything it might mean there are more, as there would be great competition.
I wouldn't be surprised if the median household income for kids entering medicine/law/banking are well above those studying cs.
(For the record, I'm not decided either way on whether breaking them up is the right way to resolve the problems that Facebook causes.)
Either that, or they'll stupidly alienate over half of all voters by standing firm on losing issues again and again and hand Trump the victory.
I'm not Nate Silver, but I think it's 50/50 shot of either of these being true.
I'm impressed by Zuckerberg's candidness and the depth he goes into explaining how he's thinking about things, and that he does this every week.
He seems like a good CEO.
First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as “Platform Utilities” and broken apart from any participant on that platform.
Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as “platform utilities.”
These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.
For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform.
To enforce these new requirements, federal regulators, State Attorneys General, or injured private parties would have the right to sue a platform utility to enjoin any conduct that violates these requirements, to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and to be paid for losses and damages. A company found to violate these requirements would also have to pay a fine of 5 percent of annual revenue.
Amazon Marketplace, Google’s ad exchange, and Google Search would be platform utilities under this law. Therefore, Amazon Marketplace and Basics, and Google’s ad exchange and businesses on the exchange would be split apart. Google Search would have to be spun off as well.
Second, my administration would appoint regulators committed to reversing illegal and anti-competitive tech mergers.
Current antitrust laws empower federal regulators to break up mergers that reduce competition. I will appoint regulators who are committed to using existing tools to unwind anti-competitive mergers, including:
Amazon: Whole Foods; Zappos
Facebook: WhatsApp; Instagram
Google: Waze; Nest; DoubleClick
Unwinding these mergers will promote healthy competition in the market — which will put pressure on big tech companies to be more responsive to user concerns, including about privacy.
She also isn't just going after large tech companies. She's also going after large banks and ISPs. It's laughable to claim that she isn't on the side of the American consumer after she almost single handily spearheaded the CFPB.
(See "A Public Option for Broadband")
I'm sure big pharma is covered too. Aside: I have no idea what a President Warren would realistically be able to enact, but her goal is not to destroy the free market. Recall that she was a Republican for a long time. She wants to use government as a referee to ensure fair competition in the market, and to fill in the gaps the market doesn't provide. That's my take on her anyway.
By defining the argument to platform-parent-and-product-child companies, Warren is choosing to sidestep that argument entirely.
I'm in favor of the proposal as generically described, but how does this specific detail work if "Search" doesn't make any money without ads?
He makes a compelling argument for anti-trust net positive value creation.
However - let's remember the US is actually extremely lax with large corporations, in Tech, finance, pharma etc., and lets them get away with murder, basically. I wouldn't trust Warren all that much in this respect considering her reliance on large donors and her defense of the democratic party establishment and the Clinton campaign.
I read the banking one, she's advocating for tougher legislation, greater separation of investment and commercial banking, etc. These are all great ideas.
I don't think many reasonable people don't think Facebook, Google, Amazon etc should not be more _regulated_. Yes, let's increase data privacy laws, close tax loopholes, make sure these Tech giants are paying their fair share in taxes, etc.
I think the links prove my statement, that she's talking about regulating Banking and Pharma, but she's talking about _breaking up_ Tech giants; therein lies the problem.
While I think “are you trolling” could come off as a bit harsh, it’s better to confront bad faith actors than to engage with them.
The article you provided is from 2015; her talk about breaking up Big Banks seems to have stopped once she started campaigning and platforming for her current run. Since then, she's focused on Tech.
Regarding Pharma, she's talking about allowing the government to produce generics i.e. increase competition to the coporations, which is very different than actually tearing a company apart using antitrust legislation. I don't think even Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos would have an issue with it if that's what she was trying to do with Tech.
The topic at hand is warren proposing _BREAKING UP_ large tech companies, while not doing the same to non-tech companies. Please stay on topic.
She is not targeting those industries with anti trust legislation because it’s inappropriate. Antitrust is not the only means with which to disrupt or break up companies.
I’m perfectly on topic dude, you griped about how Warren is so unfair to the poor tech companies but there is an insurmountable wealth of evidence that she has had various problem industries in her sights for _DECADES_
Your ONLY rebuttal was to mention anti trust laws, which is ignorant at best. This is currently topical because people are currently talking about it, that doesn’t mean she is leading a disproportionate effort to dismantle tech companies.
Isn’t it just a skinner box that they’ve attached ads to?
The company serves the people.
This is why we elect other people to represent our interests.
What value does a virtual skinner box serve? I think at one point Facebook did have value, then it changed
All other professions were treated as groups of individuals.
The idea that they are some inalienable right for people to receive limited liability and tax breaks is confusing, historically inaccurate, and largely made up in the last few decades.
You are more then welcome to act as an individual without incorporation, regardless of what value you provide. Receiving a charter from the government to act as a larger entity in society is exactly something we should be deciding about.
It used to be a hard requirement that as part of the grant of corporate status, the corporation had to operate in way that served the greater societal good -- and those that didn't had their corporate charter removed. That's not done so much anymore, and in my opinion that's a bad thing.
So, this isn't increased government interference -- it's a government thing in the first place.
The people, through, free and fair elections can fix market failures
That said, this idea only applies to their time in office, not their campaign (I'm sure lots of voters want to see a crackdown on many big businesses other than tech). But it still influences things.
Note: I'm not sold on breaking up the big tech companies. But saying she's "telling Zuckerbeg how it's done" is blatantly misconstruing her position.
> Some people need to be told to stop creating what they create because it's a net negative.
because I thought it was a bad argument, like most arguments here.
She's saying an external entity (with a very different mandate) should regulate Facebook.
See how much sense that statement makes?