Elections Liz Warren proposes breaking up tech monopolies

[Jorge Luis Borges]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-amazon.html

Key quote: "Ms. Warren’s plan would also force the rollback of some acquisitions by technological giants, the campaign said, including Facebook’s deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, Amazon’s addition of Whole Foods, and Google’s purchase of Waze. Companies would be barred from transferring or sharing users’ data with third parties. Dual entities, such as Amazon Marketplace and AmazonBasics, would be split apart."

Seems like Sanders and a few other Dems have also called for more regulation of Facebook et al, but Warren's plan is more concrete at this point. Booker, meanwhile, is pretty cozy with Silicon Valley https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013...licon-valley-friendships-started-at-stanford/. If she makes this a big campaign promise, she'll be competitive for my vote, and I haven't voted Dem (for president) since the 90s. Breaking the companies down to size is good, but I also like the idea of barring the transfer or sale of user data to third parties.

I think this is an issue that can garner a lot of bi-partisan support. Is anyone against this, and if so could you explain why?

 

[Trotsky]

I think this is an issue that can garner a lot of bi-partisan support. Is anyone against this, and if so could you explain why?

You know and agree that every single Republican in the Senate (and the vast majority in the House) would vote against this, yes? So, since you disagree with them on this issue and since you are not presently aware of any practicable policy argument justifying their adverse position (I am not aware of one either), shouldn't you be asking your political representatives that you vote for in the GOP why they oppose antitrust regulation?

Not to throw water on this bipartisan angle, but it seems like all of these "I think this is bipartisan" issues like anti-corruption, campaign finance, antitrust, etc. are not bipartisan, because they are universally opposed by Republicans in government.

 

[King in the North]

Warren is both pragmatic and realistic when it comes to policy. I’m not sure you can say the same for others running. She is the best progressive in the race.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Someone against monopolies which is the biggest problem that causes shortcomings with competitive capitalism would have me listening

 

[xcvbn]

The OG progressive Teddy Roosevelt won by campaigning hard on enforcing Anti-trust laws.

Warren won't win, but her views on monopolies have a strong position in Bernie's cabinet.

 

[vengeful]

I'm against portions of this, like Amazon acquiring Whole Foods, I don't see this as being monopolistic in any sense because Amazon isn't a grocery store chain, this is vertical integration not horizontal integration and shouldn't be regulated by the government. If Amazon wants to venture into a new avenue of business they should be able to.

I do support that companies shouldn't be allowed to share data of their users without their (the users) express consent.

 

[uppercutbus]

Companies would be barred from transferring or sharing users’ data with third parties.

That's the whole business model tho?

Also where the bias / censorship / free speech motivational talk to sell this to conservatives? I thought the political bias was was the main problem for these companies, down-scaling them won't necessarily fix that.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You know and agree that every single Republican in the Senate (and the vast majority in the House) would vote against this, yes?

I think you are misreading the tea leaves here. Right off the top of my head I recall Senator Thune being very critical of tech companies over the summer and fall. They know they'll lose big with their base which is skeptical at best and often openly hostile to Google, Facebook, and Twitter. If not, then I think the Dems might use this effectively as a wedge issue to split off former GOP voters.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

They need to apply this against the vertical integration of healthcare related companies as well.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That's the whole business model tho?

It's a lot of it. I think it would be better if it weren't, even if it means we pay in other ways. There's something insidious about mining personal data of grandma's sharing cat videos imo.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

They need to apply this against the vertical integration of healthcare related companies as well.

Interesting. Can you give an example?

 

[KILL KILL]

I don't know how I feel about this.

 

[KILL KILL]

I would be all for breaking up the telecoms. Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

 

[Fedorable]

sounds like capitalism.

 

[jefferz]

I would be all for breaking up the telecoms. Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

AT&T just got approved to merge with Time Warner.

 

[Four]

Im fine with laws that prevent these companies from selling consumer info but other wise it just feels arbitrary, from the two tiers and from classifying acquisitions of other companies as illegal

Yes, Amazon has grown so huge that they can just make cities give huge concessions, and I hate that, but that’s on the city and their voters. Amazon already has an idea of where they are going, these cities are just foolishly bargaining against each other so they get the best deal

If we let stuff like this play out, hopefully these companies will turn out like the Olympics - everybody will realize it’s a scam and only the biggest idiots will host it and give concessions, thinking it’s going to change things for the better

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I think you are misreading the tea leaves here. Right off the top of my head I recall Senator Thune being very critical of tech companies over the summer and fall. They know they'll lose big with their base which is skeptical at best and often openly hostile to Google, Facebook, and Twitter. If not, then I think the Dems might use this effectively as a wedge issue to split off former GOP voters.

I'd be shocked if more than 2 GOP senators support this.

The line they'll feed their constituents is: This is big government interfering in private company's matters and deciding what size they should be. You want to Venezuela? Because this is how you Venezuela.

And just like that, it'll have 80% support from GOP voters.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I'd be shocked if more than 2 GOP senators support this.

The line they'll feed their constituents is: This is big government interfering in private company's matters and deciding what size they should be. You want to Venezuela? Because this is how you Venezuela.

And just like that, it'll have 80% support from GOP voters.

You might be right about senators, though I doubt it will be as strongly opposed as you say. But lol at 80% of GOP voters going along with that. If you are right about the Republican Senate, then the progs should take heart, because this is an issue the GOP base feels strongly about.

 

[Deleted member 263856]

I honestly can't say how I feel about this. Regulation is always needed but I'm concerned about giving government too much reign over businesses (much like I'm concerned about private companies having too much power) because corporations will just move somewhere else.
Wouldn't it be better to just enforce clear cut laws of do's and don'ts instead of cutting companies up.
We've also entered a weird era where we kind of have to choose which company from which country do we want to be on top of the heap and handle our data. Would we like that to be Amazon and Google or Alibaba.
Trying to roll back time to pre 2001 I don't think is possible.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I have stock in apple, Amazon, and Google. So I wonder how this would impact stocks? That would be a reason to be against it, if it will negatively impact stockholders, which will impact 401ks for a lot of people as well.


Edit: I only just saw this headline earlier today and haven't been able to read much into it, but that is key initial concern