Slashdot Mirror
Should The US Government Break Up Google, Twitter, and Facebook? (siliconvalley.com)
The Bay Area Newsgroup reports:
Political momentum for a crackdown on Silicon Valley's social media giants got a boost this week when a state attorney general said he would tell U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions next week that Google, Facebook and Twitter should be broken up. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry wants the federal government to do to the social media firms what it did to Standard Oil in 1911, according to a Louisiana newspaper report Tuesday... "This can't be fixed legislatively," Landry told the paper. "We need to go to court with an antitrust suit." He or another high official from his office will next week present the break-up proposal to Sessions... Landry, president of the National Association of Attorneys General, had spent months with his colleagues probing what they described as anti-competitive practices by Facebook, Google and Twitter, according to the paper.
CNET reports: On Friday, Bloomberg reported it had obtained a draft of a potential White House executive order that asks certain government agencies to recommend actions that would "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias." The order, reportedly in its preliminary stages, asks US antitrust authorities to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws."
CNET reports: On Friday, Bloomberg reported it had obtained a draft of a potential White House executive order that asks certain government agencies to recommend actions that would "protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias." The order, reportedly in its preliminary stages, asks US antitrust authorities to "thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws."
All of these sites depend on pure mass to be useful to users. They don't want to have to be members of four different Facebook analogues. Break them up, and users will eventually flock to one site, and we are back where we started.
And how will this work? You get assigned to FB1, your wife to FB2, etc? Will you be allowed to leave one site for another? It is just unworkable.
Its a direct conflict for a cable company to be your ISP. So lets split that up first since there is a clear line
Social networks have no honor, so need a right to privacy bill to protect the users and ban ghost tracking of those who dont use it
And why not, it worked with AT&T.
... Oh, wait....
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
What authority does the gov't have in stopping "common platforms" from censoring people as they see fit? The 1st Amendment does not cover private companies.
Exactly. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to use my printing press to exercise it.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
But the software isn't a product. It's just an OS that comes with the computers. It's no different than buying a router and having that company's firmware locked in to use it. As for iOS and unsigned apps... perhaps, but then they would sacrifice device safety, privacy and integrity and you'd lose a ton of functionality (or have to lock out all unsigned apps from being able to access absolutely anything on your device.
Unless you happen to belong to a protected group. Then any attempt to deny you a service might be grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.
Betteridge got it right, again. Facebook, Twitter and Google all have viable alternatives that are easy to access, the fact that few use them is irrelevant. Also, there is little standing in the way of people setting up their own alternatives to all of these platforms. There are things that need investigating at Facebook and Google but I know of nothing warranting breaking them up.
Before you condemn me, I hate Facebook, think social media is scourge on society. However, it seems like more than anything else that this is just sour grapes over how these private businesses conduct themselves. There is an argument to be made for the social good but it defies every argument put forth by Republicans over governments interfering with businesses. If you want to do what's best for society then you also need to behave consistently.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Jeff Landry.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It doesn't but these companies are claiming protection under communication's decency act that they can't be sued for what someone posts but they are actively censoring people's like a publisher which means they can't claim immunity. So as much as they can censor people's speech they can't claim immunity from liability which they do.
Disney needs breaking up.
Summation 2
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda... Other issue is you look at 2016 and how these companies use their massive power and reach to influence election's like they tried to do in 2016. Everyone will look at "the russian interference" which lets be real did next to nothing compared to likes of google messing with its search to benfit the leftist democrat's while putting labels on GOP's picture calling them a nazi. Then you got most recent news from likes a twitter saying conservatives are scared to voice their opinion's in a very hostile liberal work place. We can also look at how Facebook and Cambridge analytic's story where all you heard about was how it helped Trump but never how Facebook data was used by Clinton and Even obama in 2012 which facebook found out later about but let them keep the data which was illega campaign contribution and like would be charged as if they looked at it. All and All these companies as posted above are using their power and reach to influence people's vote in 1 person's favor and we all know that is in favor if the liberal democrat's.
It's called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. If you want to fight that in the court the go right ahead, it's been settled law since 1890. Saying that somebody has the right to censor you on their common platform is the same as censoring somebody from using their common railroad if they said something the railroad owner found objectionable. Funny how people have no problem with censorship these days as long as it means censoring the other side.
My understanding is that they cite themselves as being publishers under the law in some contexts and effectively communications companies in other...
and as is typical they change their identification depending on what is most convenient for them.
Publishers for example are responsible for their content and communications companies have "safe harbor".
Publishers can police their content and communications companies cannot unless there is a legal violation.
So if Google is a publisher they are liable for all content on their service personally and cannot cite safe harbor.
If Google is a communications company then they cannot remove content from their services unless it violates the law.
Simply doing that would solve most of the current shit show.
Google would reflexively be forced to be a communications company because the publisher condition imposes too much overhead to be practical. That would remove the concern that google is biasing content. End of argument.
Literally just apply the law and don't let them change their identification. They can choose whichever they like. Totally their choice. And then then apply the law. Done.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Unless your printing press is a cake and icing.
I would suggest that all posts on Facebook and Twitter be funneled through a trustworthy group of House of representatives members, and they who know what is good and right can stop anything that they know is not good from ever being posted, and on repeat offenses, exercise a second amendment solution on the guilty party.
But Americans - this is not enough. Our dear leader tells us every day about the terrible lies the media tells about him.
We must extend the telling of only the truth to all forms of media, and merciless crushing of those who would bear false witness, and God will reward America once again.
Even better, shut down all media liars immediately, and set up a Government run Ministry of Truth..
Oh......what.... hold on...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Censoring one side over the other can also be considered a contribution in kind to the favored side.
What would a broken-up Twitter look like? They only have the Twitter network itself, and Periscope, and 99% of the company is Twitter. Splitting them up would still leave Twitter being just as big and problematic. Trying to split the Twitter network won't work - everyone will just switch to one of them. Even if you try to do it on national or regional lines, half the accounts I follow are foreign so I'd end up using them (or more likely, an aggregation service), and then you're right back where you started.
Facebook has some more substantial products besides their core Facebook. There's WhatsApp, Instagram, Oculus... I'd love for Oculus to go independent, the main reason I refuse to buy their hardware is that they're owned by Facebook and are thus guaranteed to turn evil at some point. A breakup here would actually do something. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's not completely unproductive like a Twitter breakup.
Google is too big. Search, GMail, Android, Chrome, Chromebooks/ChromeOS, Youtube, Drive, Docs, Pay, Play, Plus, Blogger, AppEngine/Cloud, Waze, Project Fi... the network effect is huge and it's clearly anticompetitive - and I didn't even list Alphabet's separate holdings, which include Waymo and Google Fiber. They need to be broken up. They're already anticompetitive as hell.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently enjoy legal protections against copyright infringement, defamation of character, and other kinds of legal issues because they claim that they are just redistribution information with no editorial control. Obviously, that is a sham.
The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.
No breakup needed, the problem will take care of itself with a few lawsuits.
I don't think it really matters. Companies that try to pull shit like that ultimately end up destroying their own credibility and brand more than they can actively do anything. If anything, these companies are probably bad for the Democrats as they're much further left than the party as a whole and will push agendas that aren't politically palatable outside of far-left circles. I almost wonder if we're going to get a Tea Party-esque situation where there's a splinter faction within the Democrat party and a need for the mainstream party to distance themselves from the more extreme-end.
The U.S. government could "Break up" Google, Twitter, and Facebook? And Microsoft?
I think the government is not well-managed, either. It would be a mistake to think that the government would know what to do to correct the problems. At least that is true of the U.S. government we have now.
Those companies need better management. A long time ago I had a long discussion about Google management with a mid-level Google manager. The manager said that "Google has more money that it knows how to spend". Also, that Google didn't help staff understand what was happening at Google.
Google is EXTREMELY important in my opinion, because of the Google search engine. (People say that Microsoft's Bing search is used to find Google search. Ha!)
However, in other ways, in my opinion, Google has been poorly managed. Android should have been released in a way that allows updates. Now, many web sites use a Google facility, so Google tracks people in a way that is socially offensive.
"Break up" implies destruction. What is needed is better management.
Being a company isn't the problem.
Once you've become a behemoth of a company who can manipulate popular opinion on a whim, now you're no longer just a company. You're either an ally or an adversary depending on the beliefs of the CEO, or how deep your pocketbook is. The Party in power loves these platforms as long as they are useful to them. Once they're not, we start seeing calls to break them up because of how much influence they wield over the population.
This is why it's dangerous to allow media giants to consolidate. You're putting an awful lot of power into the hands of too few people. In effect, we're letting a very few subtly influence how the majority thinks. I shouldn't have to explain how dangerous that is.
Here in the US, there isn't any neutral news anymore. They're propaganda channels for Team Red or Team Blue. You absolutely cannot watch the news without some sort of political bias inserted somewhere. ( Which is why I quit watching it at all )
So, yes. There are a lot of companies that need to be broken up and forbidden from ever becoming one again. Media companies, Content Provider / Content Delivery, Telecoms, Banks / Investment Houses, etc.
The problem is these same companies wield an awful lot of influence and money over the very people who should be regulating them.
( Why would I break up a company that will help my team win the next election ? )
Which is why they still exist at all in their current form.
This is getting really old: for the 637236th time - different rules apply to a business deemed to have a monopoly or a near-monopoly position in the market they operate in.
Where does it stop? Why some but not all? Who decides? What is the core legal rationale?
Seems to me like a huge politically driven can of worms... a slippery/slimy slope to oblivion.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Duh. Landry is a Tea-Party Republican. This is just a way to combat the perceived liberal bias of these companies.
In other words, the Fairness Doctrine was censorship, but this is A-OK because it is in a Republican cause. See how the alt-right idiots right here are lapping it up.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are PART OF the government. It's pure legal fiction that says they're "private" companies.
Actually didn't find any insightful comment that addressed the political reasons they are trying it now. Really bad, even dictatorial, reasons.
Anti-trust is a better reason, but I think there should be some improvements in the rationale. Here's my suggestion:
Pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation to make it natural for monopolies to reward themselves by reproducing rather than just growing like insane cancers. Implementation is simple: Progressive taxation of profits based on market share. If a company becomes too dominant, it actually can increase its retained profits by dividing itself into competing companies. The fundamental goal should be to seek at least 3 to 5 competitors to choose from in each market niche.
In the cases of legitimately natural monopolies the high taxes should pay for careful regulation of the monopoly and research to break the monopoly. DSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
During Standard Oil's heyday, a consumer wanting to escape from the monopolist's grip would've had to drill for oil himself and build his own refineries.
If you were a Windows user and wanted to kiss Microsoft goodbye, you still had to remove Windows from your hard drive and buy/download/compile all your apps for your preferred alternative OS, if at all possible.
Escaping the Google search engine monopoly, according to my latest information, requires the following steps:
1. launch browser
2. type "bing.com" into the address bar
3. hit "Enter"
This has to be the cutest "monopoly" in the history of antitrust legislation.
Based on a narrative that Facebook, Twitter, et. al. are engaged in an alleged campaign to censor conservative voices and opinions, and to suppress news that supports a conservative narrative.
The more cynical might observe that these companies are large contributors to Democratic candidates for office, and that this is an attempt at retaliation.