Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

theodp (442580) writes "'The government is not the only American power whose motivations need to be rigourously examined,' writes The Telegraph's Katherine Rushton. 'Some 2,400 miles away from Washington, in Silicon Valley, Google is aggressively gaining power with little to keep it in check. It has cosied up to governments around the world so effectively that its chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a White House advisor. In Britain, its executives meet with ministers more than almost any other corporation. Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders, but it is up to governments to push back. As things stand, Google — and to a lesser extent, Facebook — are in danger of becoming the architects of the law.' Schmidt, by the way, is apparently interested in influencing at least two current hot-button White House issues. Joined by execs from Apple, Oracle, and Facebook, the Google Chairman asserted in a March letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not in the economic interests of the U.S.; the Obama administration on Friday extended the review period on the pipeline, perhaps until after the Nov. 4 congressional elections. And as a 'Major Contributor' to Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us PAC, Schmidt is also helping to shape public opinion on the White House's call for immigration reform; FWD.us just launched new attack ads (videos) and a petition aimed at immigration reform opponent Rep. Steve King. In Dave Eggers' The Circle, politicians who impede the company execs' agenda are immediately brought down. But that's fiction, right?"

Comments

Who watches the watchers

[graphius]

We need oversight for government, and we need oversight for corporations. We the people* don't give a crap as long as our ipad can stream entertainment. Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Shakrai]

Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.

Sometimes I wonder if I was the only one paying attention in Civics and Social Studies. Cliff notes version:

1) The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.
2) The devolution of Democracies into fragmented self-interests is a problem that's been studied since the time of Athens. It should surprise no one.
3) The United States Federal Government was obstinately set up to minimize the aforementioned trend, but several big mistakes (Reynolds v. Sims and the 17th Amendment top the list) along the way and 200 years of mission creep have undermined most of the protections put in place.

What can we do about it? You've got me. My best suggestion is to pray for the emergence of an existential threat, because that's the only thing that will get the American people to set aside their differences long enough to find the sort of common ground it took to come up with the original Constitution. You've actually got two problems to overcome:

1) The iPad crowd's apathy towards the political process, which is reinforced by:
2) The tendency of those engaged in that process to assume that those who disagree with them are out to destroy the American way of life.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Jawnn]

Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.

In the U.S.A., it died quite some time ago. The U.S. is more accurately called an oligarchy now. The will of "the people", not to mention their interests, is (distant) secondary consideration. That much is obvious to anyone willing to actually look. Alas, most are not. Instead they allow themselves to be satisfied with the bread and circuses that are so freely handed to them.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[fustakrakich]

To paraphrase: The best argument against democracy (and yes, even democratic republics) is a five minute discussion with the average voter.

Toss it all out, it is corrupt by nature, and appoint everybody by lottery for one term only. Only then can we get the turnover needed to eliminate the careerism and mitigate the corruption.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Hognoxious]

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. They don't even refer to the same thing. It's possible to be both, one or the other, or neither[1]. Draw a venn digram, FFS..

Until you grok that, shove your civics class up your arse.

[1] For extra credit, name one in each category.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[xenoc_1]

Sometimes I wonder if I was the only one paying attention in Civics and Social Studies. Cliff notes version:

1) The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic. ...

Oh jeez this again? The classic GOP / Libertarian / Tea weak-minds binary thinking that gets the meaning of both "republic" and "democracy" wrong.

The US is (supposed to be) a democracy. Just ask any living current or ex-President. Look at any respected list of "countries that are democracies". You do the research. It's simple.

The US is a republic. As in, "not a monarchy".

Republics can be democracies or they can be dictatorships, and pretty much anything in between. There is also nothing in the word "republic" which implies "representative". Just ask North Koreans.

Democracies can be direct democracies, like ancient Athens or a current-day New England Town Meeting or California ballot initiative. Or they can be representative. There is nothing in the word "democracy" that implies "direct-only".

"Democracy" and "Republic" are orthogonal concepts, they are not antonyms. Even when the US Senate was appointed, it was appointed by state legislatures which were comprised of elected representatives, who were elected by democratic elections. As opposed to being appointed by the monarch or being passed down via aristocratic houses.

Actually nowadays we are closer to that, with the money=speech nonsense and an increasingly distractable and distracted public who will vote whichever way paid media brainwashes them to do. House Clinton, House Bush, House Kennedy, and the upstart House Paul.

You may flip the order of the following words around, depending on what you want to emphasize, change some from adjectives to nouns, but all these terms are needed to properly define what the US system of government is:

Constitutional Federal Republic governed as a Representative Democracy,

or a
Federal Constitutional Representative Democratic Republic.

Choose your emphasis, but you cannot leave any of those terms out without misrepresenting how the system is designed.

• It's a Federation of States. Not a unitary central government with weak subdivisions that have only specifically designated powers (like for example Uruguay is, where the "departamentos" of my new country of residence are far weaker than US States or even Canadian provinces, are more like counties in US states.)
• It operates under a written Constitution, rather than an unwritten or partially-wrtten collection of basic law (like the UK has)
• It is a Republic, not a Monarchy (unlike the UK which is a monarchy even though it is also a democracy)
• It is a Representative democracy rather than a direct democracy, at its Federal and in most cases at lower levels (same as UK)
• It is a Democracy rather than a dictatorship. We The People (supposedly) have a voice and a fairly-run, democratic vote, in deciding who represents us.

Leaving any of that out is at best, ignorant point-missing. Usually it is deliberate agitprop.

The sky isn't blue, it's where birds fly. What you are saying is every bit as nonsensical and more dangerous.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[MightyMartian]

And you will replace "careerism" with incompetence. Can you imagine having a House of Representatives where no one has more than one term's experience? In the end you would literally hand over all power to bureaucrats, lobbiests and staffers, who would be the only ones with any long term experience. You would, in the end, make things worse, not better.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm not sure why there's all this hand wringing over corporate influence on the political process, I'd much prefer corporations having a say than some of the more powerful ideological interests that influence politicians.

I say this because corporations are basically greedy.

Greed doesn't care about your skin colour, your gender, your nationality, greed isn't interested in reframing the social dialogue in order to deconstruct gender roles that are constantly evolving anyway, greed won't murder you or drive you out of a job because you think the wrong way or hold the wrong opinion. All greed cares about is its own self interests. I trust greed, I know what it is and what it wants, and I can reasonably reliably predict what it's going to do next. Greed is in fact the great equaliser that is the holy grail of most progressive politics.

I mean putative corporate dystopias can hardly hold a candle to some of the actual real life ideological dystopias which have existed.

And so I don't get worried about corporations influencing governments. As long as they're kept at one anothers' throats (capitalism) things are working more or less the way they should.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[careysub]

Geeze, even Mr. Franklin said "A republic - if you can keep it" when asked what the Constitutional Convention gave us. I'd take he oughta know a lot more then you! Additionally you didn't even bother to define or look up the definitions of the words you rather poorly attempt to define to mean what you want them to mean. A republic is defined as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch". You are correct as there is nothing in the word republic that implies representative - it's in the fucking definition you nimrod!

Saying that the US was "supposed to be" a democracy is nothing more than your wishful thinking. It was defined as a republic and that's what it is.....

Ah, that strange binary thinking the OP alluded to.

Let's try this, shall we?

From Dictionary.com:
Democracy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Do you notice that the "Republic" is a type of "Democracy"?

No? Okay lets lay the operative clauses out side by side:
1. ... a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them

Do you not see that the definition of "Republic" is merely a restatement of one the two forms provided as the primary definition of "democracy"?

Sheesh... this "we were never intended to be a Democracy" meme is so profoundly ignorant, and in defiance of plain English, as to be truly frightening.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[turgid]

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally - either directly or indirectly through elected representatives - in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.

Sgined: another Brit.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[khallow]

You have not provided any positive definition of the word "republic," only asserted it as a simple antonym of monarchy.

Actually that is a proper definition of "republic". Not every definition is positive.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[khallow]

There are several problems with this point of view. First, those who are greedy may throw their support to a harmful ideology (such as happened with German business and the Nazis prior to the Second World War). They can cause great harm in their own right, such as the Congo Free State or the British East India company.

Third, they can hold ideologies and attempt to pursue their greed in a way steered by their ideological blinders. For example, the Russian sell off of oil assets was expected to be a massive generator of economic value by a lot of generic business people, and it was - for a clique of well-connected oligarches. Everyone else who wasn't so well connected didn't do as well as they thought they would.

And so I don't get worried about corporations influencing governments. As long as they're kept at one anothers' throats (capitalism) things are working more or less the way they should.

This is the third great division of power in US politics.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Just to mention two of your three objections to my comment are in fact objections to ideologies (and are hence the same objection), so we're in agreement there, and third I never said greed was the best of all possible motivations. However, if I may quote the great jester of our time, Terry Pratchett:

"A thumb pressed against two fingers, and the lean figure of Dr Cruces, head tutor, looming over the startled boys.

"We do not murder," he said. It was a soft voice; the doctor never raised his voice, but he had a way of giving it the pitch and spin that could make it be heard through a hurricane.

"We do not execute. We do not massacre. We never, you may be very certain, we never torture. We have no truck with crimes of passion or hatred or pointless gain. We do not do it for a delight in inhumation, or to feed some secret inner need, or for petty advantage, or for some cause or belief; I tell you, gentlemen, that all these reasons are in the highest degree suspect. Look into the face of a man who will kill you for a belief and your nostrils will snuff up the scent of abomination. Hear a speech declaring a holy war and, I assure you, your ears should catch the clink of evil's scales and the dragging of its monstrous tail over the purity of the language.

"No, we do it for the money.

And, because we above all must know the value of a human life, we do it for a great deal of money.

There can be few cleaner motives, so shorn of all pretense.

Nil mortifi, sine lucre. Remember. No killing without payment."

He paused for a moment.

"And always give a receipt," he added. "

Re:Who watches the watchers

[Aighearach]

The Framers were specifically, clearly, and explicitly against "Democracy." That is why only a small percentage of people were allowed to vote, and they only voted on who would then go on to vote for the rulers. They were focused instead on guarantees of civil rights and local control of local issues.

The original system of electing "electors" who then choose the President was based on the English parliamentary system, but effectively with a different parliament (the Electoral College, a title borrowed from German aristocracy donating a Prince who held a vote towards electing the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) for choosing the President than for writing laws.

For example on local governance one of the big complaints was that the King would rescind the laws even of his own appointed local Governors, because he didn't want to allow the colony to be well-governed. Important and routine things like local taxes to fund local government were rescinded, leaving the colony in perpetual partial-anarchy, and interfering with the establishment of long-term business ventures. The fight was more about ensuring that local governance is allowed, and is conducted according to understood Rights, than it was about who got to choose the leaders.

Words change, but ideals of Democracy are something that came later, and have not yet succeeded in supplanting the Republic that we have. Many States, such as mine (Oregon), have local Democracy through a Ballot Measure system. At times the State Legislature has passed laws we didn't like, and we have in those cases repealed them. We also write and pass laws directly that the legislature lacks the courage to pass. But at the Federal level there is not even a legal mechanism to hold a direct election, and not a single national direct election has ever been held. But don't be confused; for many supporters of Democracy, that is the eventual goal; to create a national system where we can over-ride individual laws or decisions by the Legislature, and even enact new laws by direct vote. There are many issues that the political parties are 51/49 split on where the People in general are 70/30 on that issue. With actual Democracy we could resolve most of those issues in popular ways.

That the serfs don't even understand the basic terminology certainly adds to the difficulty in promoting those types of changes.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[siride]

They're quite competent; they just don't do what's in the best interest of all the stakeholders.

Re:Who watches the watchers

[AthanasiusKircher]

Let's try this, shall we?

From Dictionary.com:

This thread would be hilarious, if all of the people on both sides weren't taking it so seriously.

You can't quote Dictionary.com to have an argument about what Ben Franklin (or whoever else) might have meant 200+ years ago. Language changes, but more importantly, the detailed connotations of words change.

I'm not AT ALL on the side of the Tea Party lunatics, nor do I want to repeal the 17th amendment. But people claiming that "It's supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy" is meaningless or misguided are being a little ignorant of history.

What this statement really means -- to those who actually know something about history and what those terms meant in the 18th century -- is that the U.S. was founded as something closer to the Roman Republic, and less like direct democracy (a la Athens or something). Those were the models the Founders were often discussing.

It does NOT mean that a republic can't be a democracy or whatever -- it means that the terms had (and still have, to some extent) default connotations that put them at somewhat different places on the government spectrum of where power lies. You can see this if you actually spend time reading what the Founders wrote, where they often tend to qualify the word "democracy" with "representative democracy." They did this because saying the word "democracy" by itself had connotations more connected with direct democracy.

It's kind of like the word "bachelor." Does it just mean "an unmarried man"? Well, is a divorced man a "bachelor"? Some people say no, others say "sometimes." The word "bachelor" also has historical connections to eligibility for marriage, not just marital status (hence "eligible bachelor"), and historically divorced men were uncommon. Now divorced men are common, and they are often considered eligible for marriage. So, can they be "bachelors"? Certainly they can have a "bachelor pad" or behave in ways that are "bachelor-like" (yet another connotation of the word, having to do with certain behaviors, rather than marital status).

All-in-all, language is complicated. Words have default connotations, and when we start arguing about word meanings over time or boundary cases, we're bound to have disagreements. For example, in the 18th century, a "republic" couldn't mean a communist republic, since communism didn't yet exist in the form we talk about today. Acting like that has something to do with the 18th century meaning is a little bizarre.

By the mid-1800s or so, language had evolved to the point that "democracy" and "republic" had enough default connotations in common that they could often be used interchangably in the U.S. But that doesn't mean we can't still mean something by saying that the Founders intended to have [something closer to their stereotypical version of] a Republic rather than [something closer to their stereotypical version of] a Democracy.

There has been a gradual shift over the past centuries in the U.S. moving closer toward a direct democracy, which is not in-line with the (pseudo-Roman) Republican tendencies of the Founders. For a few examples:

"Roman Republican" Founders: suffrage should generally be limited to people entitled to make decisions because of their positions and assets, i.e., free male landowners.
Modern-day "more Democratic" ideal: suffrage should be nearly universal, excepting only minors and maybe felons.

"Roman Republican" Founders: many offices should be filled by indirect elections or appointments, isolated from direct democratic interventions -- such as having senators elected by state governments or presidents by an "electoral college."
Modern-day "more Democratic" ideal: senators are elected by direct popular vote; the electoral college is viewed with great suspicion, along with other indirect election or appointment methods.

"Roman Rep

Lots of people care

[rsilvergun]

what are you going to do about it? Remember Occupy Wall Street? It was systematically put down using the anti-terrorism tools from 9-11 that everyone pinky-sweared wouldn't be used on Americans.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of _more_ federal gov't. Civil rights for Black People in the Southern American States only happened because the Federal Government stepped in with the National Guard. Hell, we had outright terrorism in the south up until the late 50s early 60s. Mega corps are just too powerful to be reigned in with any less than a National Government. It's a double edged sword. But it's the only sword big enough...

Re:Lots of people care

[A nonymous Coward]

Civil rights for Black People in the Southern American States only happened because the Federal Government stepped in with the National Guard.

BULLSHIT. Slavery and Jim Crow were both the RESULT of government laws. Neither can exist in the absence of government. Jim Crow in particular owes its existence to a Louiana law requiring a railroad to segregate its railroad cars against its own wishes, said law being approved by the US Supreme Court.

You need to learn a lot of history before opening your yap next time.

Re:Lots of people care

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Fed vs State. Simple.

Easy for white man to get all emotional about the politics, without caring for the people.

Re:Lots of people care

[A nonymous Coward]

People care about people. Governments do not. Any one who thinks the government is his friend is either a crony or a fool, possibly both. Governments' mission is to compel or prohibit; their core competence is coercion in the name of the status quo.

Before government made black self-defense illegal and enforced bigotry with government guns, blacks at least had a chance. Society was at least slowly intergrating even in the face of government sanctioned lynching, before government stepped in officially and made it illegal, backed by government guns and jails. The US Post office and military were more integrated than most people realize, until Woodrow Wilson came along and enforced segregation. That Louisian railroad was just one of many companies who integrated in pursuit of the amlighty dollar, until governments came along and stopped them with government guns and jail.

Progressives are an ignorant whiny lot, like all statists. All power to the government! The people, not so much.

Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' USA

[elwinc]

The Supreme Court's 'Citizens United' decision makes it possible for billionaires to pour unimaginable amounts of money into each election cycle. Some of thse billionaires lean right, like the Koch brothers, and some don't like Google's owners. Personally I would like to see Congress pass laws reversing 'Citizens United,' but until that happy day, we're kind of on the sidelines as the big players battle it out.

Solution

[StripedCow]

Just allow companies to only grow up until they have, say, 1000 employees.
After that, they can only split.

What this solves:
No more conglomerates, companies form modular structures, output of 1 company can be reused by another company at a useful granularity.
This leads to much more competition, where previously only monopolies or quasi-monopolies were possible.
This, in turn, reduces and redistributes power.

Re:Solution

[bluegutang]

Facebook only has about 6000 employees now, and I believe it grew to most of its current size with under 1000 employees.

Also I suspect your proposal can be circumvented by establishing multiple companies owned by the same individual which cooperate together. Or (equivalently) by outsourcing certain business units to contractors.

Why concerned about only one side of Keystone XL?

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Interesting that the OP is so deeply concerned with tech companies' lobbying against Keystone XL, but not concerned with the Koch brothers, whose organizations have spent a nine-digit amount of dollars on campaigns and advertisements (often misleading or just plain false) to influence campaigns, with an eye toward issues of interest to the Koch brothers themselves, like getting limits on campaign donations removed and, just to pick a random example, getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved.

Re:Why concerned about only one side of Keystone X

[Shakrai]

but not concerned with the Koch brothers

What's the deal with this Liberal/Progressive/Leftist obsession with two people that the vast majority (85% in one poll I saw) of the American people have never even heard of? It's like the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms. It wasn't the platform, the electorate's exhaustion with the party, the bad economy, or even the usual historical trend away from a two term President.... it was those Machiavellian brothers and Citizens United!

Seriously, it's counter-productive to keep beating that particular drum, and the defeatism is a bit premature to say the least.

Incidentally, I see your Koch brothers and raise you George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The right is obsessed with those two figures, though not to the same degree the left is obsessed with the Koch brothers.

shareholder interests?

[gbjbaanb]

one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders

really? How does an oil pipeline have anything to do with anything Google shareholders care about?

Similarly, how does immigration reform benefit Facebook shareholders, who I assume, would be more interested in reducing immigration - especially cheap-ass tech workers than only benefit Facebook executives in keeping pay of those shareholders down.

Re:Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' US

[ShanghaiBill]

Some of thse billionaires lean right, like the Koch brothers, and some don't like Google's owners.

Google's owners lean right, but talk left. Like many other tech companies, they donate to liberal advocacy groups, while using tax shelters to shift their profits overseas. They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them. The only difference between Google's owners and the Koch brothers, is that with Google you get an extra layer of hypocrisy.

Re:What the hell is this article?

[Karmashock]

No I'm not.

If I build something then it isn't the state's.

By all means, tax me at the same rate you tax everyone else... but you don't get to take something from me just because you want it.

Get in that mode and you'll discourage people from building great or valuable things. Because they'll know that some weasel eyed dickless asshat will come along and cease it at gun point.

You either let people keep what they build or you society will go backwards.

Re:Just another facet of post 'Citizens United' US

[Shakrai]

They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them.

You've just described 100% of the American electorate.

Nothing new here folks

[jmd]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Actually I would argue that the period after WWII where a middle class emerged was an anomoly rather than a norm. And we Americans got so complacent we lost it and the oligarchy wrestled the power back into their hands. And the only reason that period happened was because 2 world wars and 1 depression temporarily destroyed capitalism's grip over people.

Google Can And Should Be Blamed

[Bob9113]

Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders,

Yes, they can, and should, be blamed for this. Pro-social corporations should be rewarded for their behavior. Anti-social corporations should be punished. This is a pretty basic part of free market theory and the power of the purse. Stop repeating this sociopath-loving dogma as though it had any relation to healthy free market economics. Public backlash against despotic corporations is a very important correcting force in the free market.

Re:What the hell is this article?

[ranton]

You either let people keep what they build or you society will go backwards.

Any absolute statement about topics like government or economics are almost guaranteed to be absurd (notice I said almost guaranteed).

Free market capitalism is great. It has created the most powerful economies the world has ever known. Even state run economies have only been successful when they take full advantage of global free market capitalism.

But capitalism still needs to be kept in check. You can't just take advantage of its benefits and ignore the perils. Nothing is free. Capitalism is used because it is in the best interests of society, not to benefit only the best and brightest. When situations arise that are no longer in society's best interests, it is our responsibility to react. We have had to break up other monopolies in the past to keep competition strong, and we will have to do it many times in the future.

Breaking up Standard Oil and Bell Systems did not collapse capitalism, so I really doubt that breaking up or nationalizing a few tech companies will destroy it either.

(note I am not commenting on whether anything needs to be done about Google or Facebook, just that saying we should do nothing no matter what is a silly argument)

Re:Why concerned about only one side of Keystone X

[Rockoon]

It's like the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms.

They want the Koch brothers silenced just like they want Rush Limbaugh silenced. It is unimaginable to them that others might disagree with them without the root of that disagreement being pure greed.

They just cannot believe that half the country disagrees with them, even though clearly half the country isnt "the 2%" They truly believe that "the 2%" are greedy and the other 48% that also disagree with them are "too stupid to vote in their own self interest." This is of course a catch-22 .. their logic is that the 2% are guilty because they are greedy, and the rest of the people that arent liberals are guilty because they arent greedy.

I'm not a Republican. I just cant fucking stand the dripping hypocrisy, nor the unimaginable logical fallacies of the fucking American Democrats any longer. I used to think the Democrats were liberal. They fucking aren't. They are just pure petty intolerant fucks with a giant splash of jealousy coupled with unashamed levels of outlandish hypocrisy.

Re:What the hell is this article?

[Karmashock]

Ah, here we are then.

Tell me... who is allowed to donate money to politics and who is not? I ask because I suspect there is some revenue source near and dear to your political faction that must be exempted from your rule.

I've seen this too many time to not be cynical about it. Every faction says the other's revenue sources are wrong but its are fine.

Its pretty much uniform self serving horseshit.

The courts have already said its all legal under the first amendment. You don't like it... then lets talk about applying your rule to every donation from every source.

Big unions for example... you want to cut that money off?

Strangely rooting for Microsoft in 2014

[Billly Gates]

I was an anti MS zealout and linux fan boy back in 2000. Hence why I choose my name. I was trying to find a post where I rant about MS after the DOJ sided with MS where I threatened to quit IT if MS won!! etc

But today it is different. Mainly because I prefer 3 mobile players rather than 2. 2 search engines rather than 1. Yes it is still bad for competition but this hatred for Microsoft stealing and monopolizing everything is so 10 years ago.

It is like being afraid of IBM today. Weird.

Even if you Android and Linux full time a 30% marketshare for Windows Phone will ensure Google wont get too evil and incredibly lazy and wont' set W3C standards to its own version of IE6 in Chrome. Apple is pretty small outside the US and Canada. No one in China even knows about the iPhone and Android is like Windows of the 1990s in PC's over there with 95% marketshare in the smartphone market.

Many slashdotters are still mad at MS and refuse to touch a win based OS. Fine, I feel the same about Sony. However things change and any company whether it is IBM, Microsoft, or even Google can be evil. Remember when Apple was cool again a decade ago and Steve Jobs was a nice guy who could do no wrong with opensource? Gee look what happened when Apple got power? YIKES. Not so cool and hip anymore.

I think competition where no one can set the standards is what is needed. Another facebook may come along someday if it can do something people demand. Myspace was all the rage too you know. I still wonder how facebook beat myspace?

Google search ... that is heard to beat. They are too powerful and the cost of entry is too great to compete. Google though in its current state is nimble and quick to update. Once it settles down to an ugly corporate behemonth with MBA's afraid of change where cost accountants run the show it will then become vulnerable if and only if someone can make a superior product with much much limited resources.

Re:What the hell is this article?

[Maxo-Texas]

But crack their wrists when they abuse their power and fewer will abuse their power.

Take over or break up companies that get "too big" and they amazingly will manage to exist right under the "too big" line and constantly lobby / use lawyers to find way to get bigger.

Unfettered corporate power is turning the U.S. into an oligarchy. This ends badly for a long time for many citizens and then finally ends badly for the oligarchs too. It's not a good path to head down.

Re:Government is a tool

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Government is only a corporate tool. Corporations are the shadow actors created by the super-rich to give themselves vehicles for action that are both superior to the state, and state-sanctioned legitimacy in this superiority.

Hating the "Government" is like pig-iron hating the hammer and the forge - not the Blacksmith.

Re:Government is a tool

[khallow]

Government is only a corporate tool.

You can say that, but that doesn't make it so. Governments have far more power than corporations since one can readily acquire money with power, but not the other way around. Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?

Re:USA = country founded as a republic

[dryeo]

You should read the American Constitution. It features a democratically elected House of Representatives, A Senate appointed by the democratically elected States governments and a President elected by people appointed by the democratically elected States government. This makes it a representative democracy which having a President also makes it a Republic.
China is also a Republic but doesn't have the democratic elected part and yet all you fixate on is that your country is like China, a Republic.

Possible Fixes

[RobertLTux]

1 have strict limits on the amount of funding that can be given to a given elected official (say X million per year TOTAL to include non cash gifts (use the tax value) and gifts to persons within 3 jumps of a give official) also ALL GIFTS ARE TO BE MADE PUBLIC AND POSTED TO A STANDARD LOCATION (official website??).

2 term limits lets say 3 terms and if you can be proven innocent of any crimes you can spend your third term in office and not jail.

3 Elected officials should be forbidden any after office jobs in industries that benefited from a given officials lawmaking (do 2 jumps on this part)