CDZ Should Trump bust up the Big Tech companies the way Roosevelt Trust Busted?

[2aguy]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

 

[Toronado3800]

Good topic.

I am for the monopoly breaking power of big government and can see the case for it. A bit of monopoly prevention by not ok-ing corporate purchases goes a long way also.

The cases against it is that smaller U.S. companies are easier prey for the Chinese to buy up and the smaller companies can't compete globally as well.

Personally I'd rather deal with the known evil of big government busting monopolies than have government serving monopolies.

 

[candycorn]

Oooh…government interfering in the private sector; coming from the conservatives….

 

[BlackFlag]

Oooh…government interfering in the private sector; coming from the conservatives….

And inspired not by their desire to bust up a big business, but because they want to control their speech.

 

[toomuchtime_]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

None of Facbook, Netflix, Amazon, Google are monopolies, so there is no restraint of trade in their fields and no reason to break them up.

 

[Oddball]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

In general I say no.

In the particular, the FANG companies are foursquare in favor of gubmint intervention, as it relates to so-called "net neutrality"....They are the big bandwidth users who want The State to take their side against the big bandwidth providers...In this light, the recent moves of Facebookburning and Google to chill speech come off as trying to curry favor with the statist left, who have been the ones eager to abuse their authority in order to give them what they want.

Long and the short of it is that we likely wouldn't be seeing the hard leftist tilt in the tech companies, if they didn't see a percentage in swaying The State to favor them....This speaks far more greatly in favor of The State being "trust busted" more so than anyone else....But who is going to do that?

 

[MarathonMike]

Not a fan of government intervention in the stock market. They have a way of screwing up anything they touch especially when it's not their charter.

 

[Toronado3800]

Not a fan of government intervention in the stock market. They have a way of screwing up anything they touch especially when it's not their charter.

I would argue the government was involved in creating every corporation on the DOW and the government has stepped in forcing regulations and even some insurance on them in order to prevent socialist revolutions when the corporate children of the government fail due to dishonesty, tricks of money, foolishness or occasionally matters beyond their control.

Small business owners and the wealthy use the government to create corporations as a means of welfare and insurance against what can go wrong in their money making endeavors.

 

[Crepitus]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

The only reason this is even being talked about is these outlets are generally not tRump fans. Pro-business conservatives would have fits at the very thought.

 

[Manonthestreet]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

None of Facbook, Netflix, Amazon, Google are monopolies, so there is no restraint of trade in their fields and no reason to break them up.

I would agree on Netflix....Facebook is and is supported in that by other tech companys making it difficult to compete against them....Google is somewhat in that their product interferes with other browsers you may have on your phone or computer.

 

[2aguy]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

The only reason this is even being talked about is these outlets are generally not tRump fans. Pro-business conservatives would have fits at the very thought.

No...they are actively censoring political opinion which goes against their protected status....as it was explained by the guy who runs the Dailywire.....they either are like the phone company, and they don't edit content, or they are publishers who edit content and then become responsible for that content......the phone company can't be sued for what you say on their lines.....but they can't edit what you say either.....Facebook, Google, and the other Tech companies want to edit the content...and if so, that makes them publishers liable to be sued for what they produce on their sites....

 

[Crepitus]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

The only reason this is even being talked about is these outlets are generally not tRump fans. Pro-business conservatives would have fits at the very thought.

No...they are actively censoring political opinion which goes against their protected status....as it was explained by the guy who runs the Dailywire.....they either are like the phone company, and they don't edit content, or they are publishers who edit content and then become responsible for that content......the phone company can't be sued for what you say on their lines.....but they can't edit what you say either.....Facebook, Google, and the other Tech companies want to edit the content...and if so, that makes them publishers liable to be sued for what they produce on their sites....

They are private business providing a service, so unless you're ready to start baking gay wedding cakes you don't have a leg to stand on there. They do not produce the content only the medium. You might as well say you are going to sue the company that produces the paper magazines are printed on.

And also, my former point stands: if they were pro tRump you conservatives wouldn't even be talking about this.

 

[2aguy]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

The only reason this is even being talked about is these outlets are generally not tRump fans. Pro-business conservatives would have fits at the very thought.

No...they are actively censoring political opinion which goes against their protected status....as it was explained by the guy who runs the Dailywire.....they either are like the phone company, and they don't edit content, or they are publishers who edit content and then become responsible for that content......the phone company can't be sued for what you say on their lines.....but they can't edit what you say either.....Facebook, Google, and the other Tech companies want to edit the content...and if so, that makes them publishers liable to be sued for what they produce on their sites....

They are private business providing a service, so unless you're ready to start baking gay wedding cakes you don't have a leg to stand on there. They do not produce the content only the medium. You might as well say you are going to sue the company that produces the paper magazines are printed on.

And also, my former point stands: if they were pro tRump you conservatives wouldn't even be talking about this.

Nope.....not that easy..... if they are editing content, they are no different from publishers of books, t.v. or magazines...therefore they are exposed to libel laws in everything they post......

If they want to avoid Libel laws, they have to be like the phone company, simply a format for communication with no responsibility for content.... and no power to edit that content....

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes!

 

[Crepitus]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

The only reason this is even being talked about is these outlets are generally not tRump fans. Pro-business conservatives would have fits at the very thought.

No...they are actively censoring political opinion which goes against their protected status....as it was explained by the guy who runs the Dailywire.....they either are like the phone company, and they don't edit content, or they are publishers who edit content and then become responsible for that content......the phone company can't be sued for what you say on their lines.....but they can't edit what you say either.....Facebook, Google, and the other Tech companies want to edit the content...and if so, that makes them publishers liable to be sued for what they produce on their sites....

They are private business providing a service, so unless you're ready to start baking gay wedding cakes you don't have a leg to stand on there. They do not produce the content only the medium. You might as well say you are going to sue the company that produces the paper magazines are printed on.

And also, my former point stands: if they were pro tRump you conservatives wouldn't even be talking about this.

Nope.....not that easy..... if they are editing content, they are no different from publishers of books, t.v. or magazines...therefore they are exposed to libel laws in everything they post......

If they want to avoid Libel laws, they have to be like the phone company, simply a format for communication with no responsibility for content.... and no power to edit that content....

Actually it is that easy. You and the other conservative types are just searching for justification.

 

[2aguy]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

The only reason this is even being talked about is these outlets are generally not tRump fans. Pro-business conservatives would have fits at the very thought.

No...they are actively censoring political opinion which goes against their protected status....as it was explained by the guy who runs the Dailywire.....they either are like the phone company, and they don't edit content, or they are publishers who edit content and then become responsible for that content......the phone company can't be sued for what you say on their lines.....but they can't edit what you say either.....Facebook, Google, and the other Tech companies want to edit the content...and if so, that makes them publishers liable to be sued for what they produce on their sites....

They are private business providing a service, so unless you're ready to start baking gay wedding cakes you don't have a leg to stand on there. They do not produce the content only the medium. You might as well say you are going to sue the company that produces the paper magazines are printed on.

And also, my former point stands: if they were pro tRump you conservatives wouldn't even be talking about this.

Nope.....not that easy..... if they are editing content, they are no different from publishers of books, t.v. or magazines...therefore they are exposed to libel laws in everything they post......

If they want to avoid Libel laws, they have to be like the phone company, simply a format for communication with no responsibility for content.... and no power to edit that content....

Actually it is that easy. You and the other conservative types are just searching for justification.

No....we are being censored, and if the big techs are going to edit content, they need to be sued when that content is libel.....

 

[task0778]

Actually, I'm a pro-business conservative, but I think having 5-10 one billion dollar companies is better than 1 ten billion dollar corp. OTOH, you also have to look at the benefit to the consumer, especially the ones who are close to or below the poverty level. These people need the Walmarts and the Amazons of the world because they can buy more stuff at a cheaper price, thanks to the economies of scale. [The biggies get a lower price when they buy a million units of product X, as opposed to a small company that only buys a thousand units of the same thing.]

So, for me it comes down to whether an acquisition or merger benefits the consumer that much. If it clearly does, then fine go for it. I don't care that much about a big corp's global position overseas somewhere, I care about what's happening here at home. But if the benefit to consumers ain't so cut and dried then maybe not, especially if the deal gives too much market share or control over some aspect of our lives, i.e., communications. I don't want to see only a few big corps controlling our TV networks and the Internet.

 

[toomuchtime_]

An article on busting up all the big tech companies...

Is Trust-Busting the Answer?

Our friend Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in USA Today in which he urges antitrust enforcement actions against the dominant tech firms: “Donald Trump must bust Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt.”

Roosevelt built a strong reputation by going after the trusts, huge combinations that placed control of entire industries in the hands of one or a few men. He broke up John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the Google of its day. He shut down J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities Co., which would have monopolized rail transportation in much of the United States. And he pursued numerous other cases (45 in all) that broke up monopolies and returned competition to markets.
***
Big monopolies aren’t just an economic threat: They’re a political threat. Because they’re largely free of market constraints, they don’t have to put all their energy into making a better product for less money. Instead, they put a lot of their energy into political manipulation to protect their monopoly.

An industry made up of 500 companies might want government protection, but it’s harder to get them to agree on a lobbying campaign. One made up of three companies, or one, can do so, and be sure that it will reap all the rewards of its effort.

Thus, as [Columbia Law professor Tim] Wu notes, “the more concentrated the industry, the more corrupt we can expect the political process to be.” And as he points out, these fears (and the realities) of huge companies wielding unchecked political power motivated the antitrust crusaders of a century ago every bit as much as concern about prices.

Perhaps so. But conventional antitrust theory assumes that the point of being a monopolist is to make more money by raising prices. Nothing in antitrust law, that I know of, contemplates the situation we have today, where companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube are willing to make less money if it means they can suppress political views with which they disagree.

Today, things look a lot like Teddy Roosevelt’s era. A few monopolies occupy much of the tech world: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — FANG, as they’re often abbreviated. They gobble up potential competitors, as Facebook did with WhatsApp and Instagram.
***
And these new tech monsters have a one-two punch that Standard Oil lacked: Not only do they control immense wealth and important industries, but their fields of operation — which give them enormous control over communications, including communications about politics — also give them direct political power that in many ways exceeds that of previous monopolies.

None of Facbook, Netflix, Amazon, Google are monopolies, so there is no restraint of trade in their fields and no reason to break them up.

I would agree on Netflix....Facebook is and is supported in that by other tech companys making it difficult to compete against them....Google is somewhat in that their product interferes with other browsers you may have on your phone or computer.

There are loads of other social media sites successfully competing with Facebook as we speak and the Google search engine works on all browsers and phones, and if you have trouble with it there are many other search engines.

 

[Preacher]

Absolutely! I hope he does.

 

[Wuwei]

No...they are actively censoring political opinion which goes against their protected status....as it was explained by the guy who runs the Dailywire.....they either are like the phone company, and they don't edit content, or they are publishers who edit content and then become responsible for that content......the phone company can't be sued for what you say on their lines.....but they can't edit what you say either.....Facebook, Google, and the other Tech companies want to edit the content...and if so, that makes them publishers liable to be sued for what they produce on their sites....

I don't know what you mean by "edit". To me that means revising, modifying or adapting. I think a better word for those types of government regulations would be "censoring". This is already done by phone companies, in the sense that there are regulations controlling or disallowing telemarketing, robo-calls, etc.

Similarly with the social media, Twitter and Facebook have "censored" fake news bots, foreign election meddling, Alex Jones and his Infowars , etc. It would seem that there is not much difference between telephone and social media in that respect.