Editorial: Senator Warren's stance on big tech breakup is dangerous politics

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 92
    peteopeteo Posts: 402member
    "Yes, but I'm sure you're aware that Warren can't actually make any of these things happen by herself, even if elected President"

    Yup you come up with policy ideas and broad over all outline, Then you task it to congress to write what this would look like as policy and law.
    This way both sides can have a say, and sometimes both sides can get a little bit here and there.

    I find it funny when everyone freaks out about breaking up business but then complain when they have a few choices, prices keep rising and rights/privacy keep being eroded.

    foregoneconclusion
  • Reply 22 of 92
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,751member
    Hmm. A political manifesto on AI. Yes, your property, your space, your rules. I completely get it.
  • Reply 23 of 92
    peteo said: I find it funny when everyone freaks out about breaking up business but then complain when they have a few choices, prices keep rising and rights/privacy keep being eroded.
    Yeah, there's a fairly large disconnect for a lot of it. And look at how often the tech companies are duking it out in court over various issues. It's not like they don't think the government should be involved.
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 24 of 92
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,553administrator
    eightzero said:
    Hmm. A political manifesto on AI. Yes, your property, your space, your rules. I completely get it.
    There's no partisan politics here trumpeting one party superior to another, this is hardly a manifesto, and this isn't a news piece.

    And, you'll note that the comments on this, and the piece you expected would get closed the other day, are still open.
    edited March 2019 eightzeromuthuk_vanalingambshank
  • Reply 25 of 92
    BxBornBxBorn Posts: 74member
    LOL...Warren isn't doing anything different than what media companies or businesses do themselves when it comes to distributing information. You have to choose a central focus to get the point across. That central focus isn't going to include every single piece of detail that's relevant to the issue. And the idea that it's somehow bad to include info that "triggers people to react" is a hopelessly cynical double-standard coming from a web site that is almost entirely focused around rumors and hot takes on Apple and their competitors that often turn out to be completely wrong. The fact that people react like this when large tech companies are challenged on something to do with their business just proves Warren's points.
    Never fear, the elites will take care of our every need.
    The corporate world is full of elites. That's why wage stagnation has become such a big issue.
    fair point about the media but not so much on tying in AppleInsider - the name alone already let's you know that the site is Apple focused and will curate information from all over as it relates to Apple. It's not like they present themselves as an all encompassing technology website but only push Apple while stepping on other tech companies to do so...that's what other media outlets and politicians do
  • Reply 26 of 92
    Facebook shouldn't be broken up. Facebook should be shut down. It's evil.
    pscooter63
  • Reply 27 of 92
    NotsofastNotsofast Posts: 450member
    heli0s said:
    In 2019 America only 2-3 major companies dominate every major economic sector, from ecommerce to air travel, to the TV shows you watch - if think that's good for consumers, you're massively ignorant of both economics and history. Tech monopolies are no different than monopolies in any other sphere - there is a point when too big is bad for consumers and the company itself. Monopolies have no interest in innovation, they have an interest in rent-seeking.

    As an Apple-focused site, look no further than the keyboard issues of recent Macs. If you want macOS, there is ONE company that makes it. So take that shitty keyboard or go use Windows. Real choice!
    That's wrong in so many aspects, but let's just look at the App store. Software used to cost so much because developers, especially smaller companies, had no effective way to market their products other than a few stores, who take at least half of the revenue, and then on line where they had no effective way or the necessary money to market their products.  But Apple came along with the App store, at a cost of billions of dollars, but it created a worldwide market place where every single person in their home could reach a billion customers and Apple would take care of all the marketing, billing, security, etc. Voila,  about a $100 billion dollars has now made its way into the pockets of developers around the world and prices for consumers have dropped dramatically.
    pscooter63stompyn2itivguybshank
  • Reply 28 of 92
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Elizabeth Warren and Jeremy Corbyn should join forces and take control of Venezuela. 
    rotateleftbyte
  • Reply 29 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Warren is a terrible liar, a disgusting scold and a phony. What in the world are Democrats thinking by supporting Marxists, anti-capitalists and Socialists? There’s nothing to be gained.
    designr
  • Reply 30 of 92
    So if you start a business, don’t succeed and get big, or she’ll want to break you up! Yeah, that’s a real good confidence builder for entrepreneurs! She should go eff herself! She’s a fool...with a position, sadly.

    designr
  • Reply 31 of 92
    Forget about it. She doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination anyway. The Washington Post wrote last week that her support is lingering in the single digits and said her campaign is on "death watch."
    SpamSandwichbshank
  • Reply 32 of 92
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    So if you start a business, don’t succeed and get big, or she’ll want to break you up! Yeah, that’s a real good confidence builder for entrepreneurs! She should go eff herself! She’s a fool...with a position, sadly.

    Rockefeller got richer when Standard Oil was broken up, so entrepreneurs shouldn't be too bothered.  Not that there's much chance of anyone being the next Rockefeller anyway; if a person is discouraged by legislation that only applies to companies worth hundreds of billions then they're trading in delusions.
  • Reply 33 of 92
    karmadavekarmadave Posts: 368member
    I do not support Elizabeth Warren's candidacy, but believe she is fostering an important discussion. EW has been a tireless advocate for consumers vs. big, powerful corporations. Before being elected to the Senate she was a law professor and has studied issues such as monopoly and concentration of corporate power and its effects on consumers. My initial reaction was to dismiss her comments as bombastic and naive, however upon listening to a more recent interview, she does raise some excellent points. I suggest people open their minds and consider what she is really saying. Namely that large tech companies have too much power and often use this power to squash smaller, upstart competitors. It's really about the business practices, some of these companies use, that should be more closely examined. I fundamentally disagree that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc. should be broken up. However, certain business practices these companies use should be examined and if necessary should be prohibited by law. By giving these companies 'cart blanche' to squash smaller competitors it actually discourages new business generation. EW is not against success, just business practices that are unfair and fundamentally anti-competitive. 

    P.S. Please keep this discussion civil. I have tried to avoid politics and certainly would NEVER wage ad hominem attacks on those with whom I disagree ;-)
    muthuk_vanalingamn2itivguy
  • Reply 34 of 92
    KuyangkohKuyangkoh Posts: 839member
    heli0s said:
    In 2019 America only 2-3 major companies dominate every major economic sector, from ecommerce to air travel, to the TV shows you watch - if think that's good for consumers, you're massively ignorant of both economics and history. Tech monopolies are no different than monopolies in any other sphere - there is a point when too big is bad for consumers and the company itself. Monopolies have no interest in innovation, they have an interest in rent-seeking.

    As an Apple-focused site, look no further than the keyboard issues of recent Macs. If you want macOS, there is ONE company that makes it. So take that shitty keyboard or go use Windows. Real choice!
    There you go, we do have a choice right? If you are good, you are good and NO squats about that. If you are good enough then you suffer, isnt this what a our market is supposed to work? If you work hard and get famous that everyone uses your services you becomes BAD? So where is the intentions of others to inoovate to be very good if at the end these so called lawmakers will break you up...why dont they focused on the things that they are supposed to do, like unemployments, homelessness, immigrations....too many problems that we have and thats where tney should concentrate.....
  • Reply 35 of 92
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    karmadave said:
    I do not support Elizabeth Warren's candidacy, but believe she is fostering an important discussion. EW has been a tireless advocate for consumers vs. big, powerful corporations. Before being elected to the Senate she was a law professor and has studied issues such as monopoly and concentration of corporate power and its effects on consumers. My initial reaction was to dismiss her comments as bombastic and naive, however upon listening to a more recent interview, she does raise some excellent points. I suggest people open their minds and consider what she is really saying. Namely that large tech companies have too much power and often use this power to squash smaller, upstart competitors. It's really about the business practices, some of these companies use, that should be more closely examined. I fundamentally disagree that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc. should be broken up. However, certain business practices these companies use should be examined and if necessary should be prohibited by law. By giving these companies 'cart blanche' to squash smaller competitors it actually discourages new business generation. EW is not against success, just business practices that are unfair and fundamentally anti-competitive. 

    P.S. Please keep this discussion civil. I have tried to avoid politics and certainly would NEVER wage ad hominem attacks on those with whom I disagree ;-)
    A vibrant competitive marketplace ensures companies stay on their toes far better than over-regulated companies or a field in which the laws are written to favor the most politically connected. Capitalism and competition work!
    bshank
  • Reply 36 of 92
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 717member
    There's always a few nuggets of truth or a germ of interest in new ideas. Some ideas, such as socialism, sound wonderful to younger people without the benefit of historical understanding. There are issues with unbridled capitalism and there have to be intelligently applied rules so everyone who wants to play the game has a chance to birth a great idea. When I hear some of the ideas from Warren, I tense up instinctually. My initial thoughts are always, "what could go wrong here?" I line up the govt. on one side, or at least Warren, and Apple on the other, and wonder if it's a good idea that Warren or the govt. should have whatever control they are seeking over a company. There should be innovation as well as consumer protections. When companies appear to be violating the rules, they should face the consequences. It's a balancing act and the pendulum swings from side to side. Companies who abuse privacy laws, practice collusive pricing practices, or abuse consumers should be held to account. I feel our filters just need to be a little tighter when it's election season and politicians are throwing out candy for re-election.
    n2itivguy
  • Reply 37 of 92
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,473member
    karmadave said:
    I do not support Elizabeth Warren's candidacy, but believe she is fostering an important discussion. EW has been a tireless advocate for consumers vs. big, powerful corporations. Before being elected to the Senate she was a law professor and has studied issues such as monopoly and concentration of corporate power and its effects on consumers. My initial reaction was to dismiss her comments as bombastic and naive, however upon listening to a more recent interview, she does raise some excellent points. I suggest people open their minds and consider what she is really saying. Namely that large tech companies have too much power and often use this power to squash smaller, upstart competitors. It's really about the business practices, some of these companies use, that should be more closely examined. I fundamentally disagree that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc. should be broken up. However, certain business practices these companies use should be examined and if necessary should be prohibited by law. By giving these companies 'cart blanche' to squash smaller competitors it actually discourages new business generation. EW is not against success, just business practices that are unfair and fundamentally anti-competitive. 

    P.S. Please keep this discussion civil. I have tried to avoid politics and certainly would NEVER wage ad hominem attacks on those with whom I disagree ;-)
    A vibrant competitive marketplace ensures companies stay on their toes...
    Capitalism and competition work!
    That's in essence what Ms. Warren is advocating isn't it? 
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 38 of 92
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member
    heli0s said:
    lkrupp said:
    heli0s said:
    In 2019 America only 2-3 major companies dominate every major economic sector, from ecommerce to air travel, to the TV shows you watch - if think that's good for consumers, you're massively ignorant of both economics and history. Tech monopolies are no different than monopolies in any other sphere - there is a point when too big is bad for consumers and the company itself. Monopolies have no interest in innovation, they have an interest in rent-seeking.

    As an Apple-focused site, look no further than the keyboard issues of recent Macs. If you want macOS, there is ONE company that makes it. So take that shitty keyboard or go use Windows. Real choice!
    But I guess giant government is just fine, huh? Government can never get so big that it it’s bad for the people? Never fear, the elites will take care of our every need. Oh, and Apple is NOT a monopoly, even unto itself. Psystar found that out the hard way.
    I don't care about how "big" government is, I care about how effective it is. America already has a giant government, which is fitting for being the world's largest economy and a country of 340 million people. The problem is not the size, the problem is who government works for now. Clue: it's not average Americans - something that everyone agrees, whether you're conservative or liberal. That has to change. At least with government, you can vote these people out and change who represents you. Try quitting Facebook, or Amazon, or Google - it's impossible. 
    @heli0s: Lots of untruths in most of what you write.

    For example:
    In 2019 America only 2-3 major companies dominate every major economic sector, from ecommerce to air travel,
    Let's take Air travel. If I want to fly from The Phoenix area to the Chicago area, I can use:
    Delta,
    American,
    Spirt,
    Southwest,
    United,
    Allegiant Air

    Let's see.  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

    Okay. That is 6 different options with amazing competition. Sounds GREAT for consumers. I can tear apart each of you baseless claims in your first post just as easily. By using facts, it is easy to show you do not really understand a word you wrote on that first post:

    The problem is not the size, the problem is who government works for now. Clue: it's not average Americans - something that everyone agrees, whether you're conservative or liberal.
    I would say using the word "everyone" makes this a statement of extreme hyperbole and "some" or "many" might be a better choice of words. Most moderates, would strongly disagree with your view.

    bshank
  • Reply 39 of 92
    nanonano Posts: 179member
    A good podcast that goes into some academic detail some of the problems with the likes of Amazon or Google as "Big Tech" companies.  It is not surprising people are upset and politicians will use the issue in a campaign.  Apple may be inadvertently targeted by getting lumped in with "them" but the App Store's walled garden is something a consumer can understandably not like if they want to switch devices and the same software has to be purchased in another store.

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/antitrust-3-big-tech/id290783428?i=1000430442353&mt=2
  • Reply 40 of 92
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,228member
    gatorguy said:
    karmadave said:
    I do not support Elizabeth Warren's candidacy, but believe she is fostering an important discussion. EW has been a tireless advocate for consumers vs. big, powerful corporations. Before being elected to the Senate she was a law professor and has studied issues such as monopoly and concentration of corporate power and its effects on consumers. My initial reaction was to dismiss her comments as bombastic and naive, however upon listening to a more recent interview, she does raise some excellent points. I suggest people open their minds and consider what she is really saying. Namely that large tech companies have too much power and often use this power to squash smaller, upstart competitors. It's really about the business practices, some of these companies use, that should be more closely examined. I fundamentally disagree that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, etc. should be broken up. However, certain business practices these companies use should be examined and if necessary should be prohibited by law. By giving these companies 'cart blanche' to squash smaller competitors it actually discourages new business generation. EW is not against success, just business practices that are unfair and fundamentally anti-competitive. 

    P.S. Please keep this discussion civil. I have tried to avoid politics and certainly would NEVER wage ad hominem attacks on those with whom I disagree ;-)
    A vibrant competitive marketplace ensures companies stay on their toes...
    Capitalism and competition work!
    That's in essence what Ms. Warren is advocating isn't it? 
    No, she is advocating if you are doing well, we have to limit your ability to compete and build platforms.
    SpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.