Slashdot Mirror


Elizabeth Warren Calls To Break Up Facebook, Google, and Amazon

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is proposing to break up technology companies, including Amazon.com, Google and Facebook, calling them anti-competitive behemoths that are crowding out competition. From a report: "Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world," Warren wrote in a post on the blogging platform Medium. "It's a great story -- but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets." Warren's call also comes as Democrats have begun to plan for increased oversight of tech companies after winning control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats introduced legislation to establish strong net neutrality protections that would look to prevent major service providers from using their power to manipulate how users experience the internet. Update: In a statement, Warren's team said that the proposal would also apply to Apple. "They would have to structurally separate -- choosing between, for example, running the App Store or offering their own apps," a spokesperson said.

21 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Apple? by gti_guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No complaints about Apple and their walled-garden?

    1. Re:Apple? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      For iDevices, Apple has a 44% Market share in the US, and its market share across the world as a whole is less than 20%. For computers, it barely scrapes 5%. So while Apple is doing well, it's doing well in a market with healthy competition.

      (I don't actually agree that any of these companies need to be broken up, I'm just pointing out Apple doesn't fit the criteria. Google and Amazon have good and bad sides and might need some regulation, but they're not, overall, terrible for the industry. Facebook should be killed with fire, not broken up where it can turn back into itself like the Terminator from Terminator 2.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Apple? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Breaking up Google would be a catastrophic disaster for privacy. Google has been good when it comes to protecting the data it has, and has every commercial incentive to continue to do so. Break it up and that data is now available to multiple companies, each of which has no incentive to keep it secret.

      Breaking up Amazon? I don't see why. People buy from Amazon because it's a trusted entity and probably the only online store that's achieved that. The issues with Amazon, such as shitty employment conditions, would get worse, not better, if it was broken up into other companies that have to go into a race to the bottom as far as costs go.

      What are you achieving by breaking either up that wouldn't be better solved with proper regulation? Nothing. You're removing a trusted retailer and replacing it with four untrustworthy ones, and you're duplicating the number of companies that collect your data. Who benefits? Russian hackers maybe?

      Facebook needs to die. The other two can live, but I would like the government step in and say "You can't do that" occasionally. Even if it pisses Rand Paul off. Actually, especially if it pisses Rand Paul off, that's just a bonus.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Apple? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      zuckerberg and his buddies at fakebook should be put in a federal prison for collecting and selling other people's personal information and facebook utterly destroyed

      At the risk of provoking a hornet's nest, what Federal laws has Zuckerberg violated? The answer, of course, is none. While it may feel very satisfying to propose throwing him in jail, in a country where the rule of law prevails someone must actually be convicted of a crime before the State can punish them. Are you advocating for a government that arbitrarily imprisons people that have broken no laws? What a frightening proposition.

      Likewise, "utterly destroying" Facebook is not the job of the government. You, the consumer, have that power right now if you and enough similarly-thinking individuals work in concert. An article appeared yesterday showing millions of people are abandoning FB, all (gasp!) without government telling them to! Shocking, I know, that people can exercise individual choice without being ordered about by an all-powerful government, but it happens.

      You might want to consider the consequences of having a government that can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whoever it wants.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    4. Re:Apple? by tomhath · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a special screen protector...called a smoke screen

    5. Re: Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This canard again? Antitrust laws aren't just about monopolies, they're about anticompetitive behavior in general.

      Amazon right now controls roughly half the online retailing in the US and had been driving local retailers out of business with questionable business practices. Increasingly they are the option for many purchases.

      Worse is that after driving Border's out of business and destroying the book store industry they're opening physical bookstores and getting involved with other retail establishments.

      Antitrust laws work best when they're enforced before a company can bankrupt entire industries.

    6. Re:Apple? by WankerWeasel · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're thinking of Amazon only as on online retailer. The proposed breakup would involve their cloud services, which they're one of the largest players in, potentially Alexa/voice computing, subscription services like Prime Video and music, etc.

    7. Re: Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So ignorant and short sighted. They have half the online sales in the US and the only reason they're at 5% of sales in general is that they have basically no physical locations.

      Amazon isn't a monopoly, thankfully there is no legal requirement to be a monopoly in order to run afoul of antitrust regulations.

      Why wait until they've completely taken over the economy when they're already breaking the law?

  2. No Plan, just Populism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, that's her plan "break up the monopolies" ... and give the market to the Chinese who have a vested interest in maintain control of the world's infrastructure and who have demonstrated the ability to exploit a totalitarian surveillance state? This is JV level retarded, not something that should be seriously endorsed by a reasonable statesman.

    1. Re:No Plan, just Populism by thereddaikon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If everyone weren't so fucking vile and crazy right now then we could get real bipartisan pro-consumer work done. You wouldn't have to worry about Chinese out competing smashed up silicon valley tech firms with Trump's trade war against china. As odd as it likely sounds, winning the trade struggle means we could have our cake and eat it. US firms wouldn't be killed off by unfair state sponsored Chinese competition but they also couldn't flex their market dominance on consumers.

    2. Re:No Plan, just Populism by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think Trump has a chance

      You don't understand American Politics. Trump didn't have a chance last time either. Almost all the Media Pundits were wrong last time, and they are wrong for all the same reasons this time.

      And Democrats have gone Batshit Crazy and Nancy Pelosi is looking like the most grownup in the crowd.

      The fact that Warren is still viable after her "I'm an Indian. No I never claimed to be Indian. Hey look, I have less Indian than most Americans that proves I'm Indian, but I am not claiming to be Indian" stunt is proof how bat shit crazy they are.

      The rampant Anti-Semitism in the party is fracturing the Jewish part of their coalition.

      Blacks are starting to figure out that after 60 years of "civil rights" that the Democrats aren't really supportive. Now with "Hey look, Illegal Aliens are the preferred minority" bit, more and more are realizing that the Democrats were the real racists all along, only courting the Black vote every other and four years, while ignoring them during off election years.

      Hell, even Californians and New Yorkers are starting to bail on their Liberal states, the only problem is they haven't figured out that Taxing People to death (and beyond) isn't productive and are taking their stupid ideas with them.

      America is having boom years, record Employment, Jobs, wage Growth .... If Trump ran SIMPLY on that, he'll win in a landslide.

      And the tired "America and Trump Supporters are Racist" tag line by liberals is all but gone after Covington Catholic boys and Jussie Smollett proves that is the best the media can find in "racism" category are FAKE and fraudulent. THAT is the best they can actually find. Meanwhile the actual violence by Antifa Types and deranged left-wing loons are largely panned as "Not that common" (but happen way more often than racist violence)

      Which of the confirmed candidates do you think has a chance?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Throng throng throng... by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Warren has to say something to separate herself from the throngs of Democratic Presidential hopefuls, and elevate her campaign into the limelight, but she doesn't really have a clue what her proposal would do.

    Internet neutrality is poorly understood by Washington, and there would be throngs of salivating international competitors for the void created if the US government handicaps their domestic tech industry.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  4. Split Google ... by psergiu · · Score: 4, Funny

    So to get the full search results you'll have to look-up the same thing on:

    googleatlantic.com
    googlepacific.com
    googlesouth.com
    googlesouthwest.com
    googlewest.com
    googletech.com
    googleny.com

    ?

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  5. Telcos by Luthair · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Separate the networks and prohibit them from selling to users, or having exclusive contracts. Then we have competing networks (though sometimes it might be cable vs dsl), and competing providers on top of the networks.

    1. Re:Telcos by gaiageek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. People have a choice when it comes to using Google, Amazon or Facebook -- and not to defend Facebook, but I don't know what breaking it up would accomplish, since for many people the only reason they're on Facebook is because that's where everyone else is (though I guess there's a good argument for breaking off WhatsApp and Instragram).

      When it comes to internet service providers however, many people have no choice, or a choice between two shitty providers. There are good examples in other countries of ISP's competing with one another while using the same infrastructure.

  6. Facebook? by schmaustech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Break up Facebook? Why not just close it down? Facebook is a drain on humanity for being the megaphone of ignorance and narcissism.

    1. Re:Facebook? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thankfully people in most countries are free to waste their time on whatever ignorance and narcissism they choose. You could kill their business model though, by placing strict limitations on the collection and use of personal data, and strictly enforcing those rules. Keep in mind that you'll kill the business model of many other online services at the same time.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  7. Re:Title is wrong by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Breaking up monopolies is socialist now?

    So the world did turn 180 degrees while I wasn't looking...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Seems like they missed a bunch of companies by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Walmart

    Microsoft

    AT&T

    Oracle

    Disney

    Koch Brothers

    and so on.

    I guess if you wanted to break them all up for the betterment of the people of the US, there wouldn't be any corporate entities left to contribute to :campaign finances", which would also be a good thing.

  9. Didn't we have that discussion about Microsoft? by gotan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... it didn't happen.

    IMHO it won't work. For one thing these companies have far too much influence already to let that happen, also the US aren't interested in devalueing their most successful companies.

    Another thing is, that they are in a business (especially facebook) where having more customers makes the service more attractive to additional customers. participation in a social network is more interesting the larger that network is.

    With amazon the case is slightly different: there it's about convenience (ordering and paying via only one instance) and scaling effects.

    With google: As far as i can remember there was always one search engine that people flocked to (at some point that was alta-vista), just because it gave the most useful results. Google became successful because their page-ranking algorithms gave the most useful results. Of course now they are so big, and know how to monetize their services, it'll be hard for any competitor to get a foot in the door. An exception may be niches like the one DuckDuckGo found (better privacy).

    So i don't think breaking these companies up will be a realistic goal. I think that they should be regulated though, to hinder them from abusing their power (e.g. censoring or just imagine an amazon embargo).

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  10. Not monopolies by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Twenty-five years ago, Facebook, Google, and Amazon didn't exist. Now they are among the most valuable and well-known companies in the world," Warren wrote in a post on the blogging platform Medium. "It's a great story -- but also one that highlights why the government must break up monopolies and promote competitive markets."

    Except none of them is actually a monopoly. Facebook might come closest with social networking but even then to call it a monopoly is something of a stretch. Amazon and Google aren't monopolies in any serious sense of the word. Yes they are 800lb gorillas in their respective space but not monopolies unless you define the market so narrowly as to make the term lose meaning.

    Believe me, I'm all for breaking up and regulating companies if/when they become problems but this isn't it. The companies that need to be broken up are the large banks. THEY are a threat to the financial stability of the country. Look to the events of 2008 if you need evidence. The big tech companies are not even close to being a serious systemic threat.

    Update: In a statement, Warren's team said that the proposal would also apply to Apple. "They would have to structurally separate -- choosing between, for example, running the App Store or offering their own apps," a spokesperson said.

    Umm, Apple doesn't really sell much of their own software through the App store. They aren't Microsoft where they have some dominating application like Office. I think these people have no clue how Apple's business actually works or how they make money.