nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

Kivaro

Waking up to the news that Google has threatened to remove access to its search engine from Australian users, and Facebook has similarly threatened to remove news from its feed also to Australian users, it seems they are acting more like bullies than internet service providers with their threats. This came about after Australia introduced a law that would require Google, Facebook and other tech companies to pay media outlets for their news content, which seems to be a fair request. What is strange is that Google only yesterday agreed that they will pay news publications in France for the use of their content online in a "landmark agreement".

I do not believe that Trump would have been elected in 2016 without Cambridge Analytica's access and manipulation of user data on Facebook; something that Facebook knew was happening months before the scandal broke. Self-regulation has not worked. We all know that Big Data is King, but should these Big Tech companies actually decide or shape who becomes the leaders of democratic countries? Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft also have unfair competitive advantage over smaller companies, and they have a dubious history with privacy issues and the data they now own but actually belong to us. Not to mention the outrageous wealth that the few men who own these tech companies have amassed.

Is regulation required to control the influence of these Big Tech companies, or should we just let them get even bigger? Yay or Nay?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Invidious

Is this the same Australian government that has attempted to ban secure encryption?

Chips Lovell

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

The only bully I'm seeing in it all is the Australian government.

Regulation isn't bullying. Opting not to operate in a certain market because you don't like the regulations isn't bullying either.

[Deleted User]

The only bully I'm seeing in it all is the Australian government.

Snotty

Kivaro wrote: »

No sure where you got that from.
I was referring to the Amazon bias in my post.

And they can be as bias as they want, its not even bias, its just favoritism, just like any private company or citizen can be. I'll ask it again, what should be done, what exactly should be done?

I love the faux outrage that people bring to these types of threads, offer nothing as a solution as they just want to be outraged and its mostly at things they have no right to be outraged at.

Invidious

Kivaro wrote: »

Not to mention the outrageous wealth that the few men who own these tech companies have amassed.

They are public companies, owned by their shareholders. And they've made a lot of people fairly wealthy.

MacronvFrugals

Kivaro wrote: »

Big Tech companies are trying to rule the world with their algorithms. You know something is up when you have the EU and both sides of the political spectrum in the States crying out for the regulation of these dangerous behemoths.

100%, if people actually knew what was behind each scroll of a feed they would be shocked.

ironically working in this area has really cemented my opinion breaking them up is needed.

Thats not even to talk about how close they are to the US intelligence services ie Bezos sitting on a Pentagon board etc

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

And arnt left wing people in favour of regulation?

Yes?

Kivaro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

..... you are deluded.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

...... you sound like a communist.

You have an unusual manner in trying to convey your point of view. Are you angry or riled up with the notion of Big Tech regulation?

Fighting Tao

This thread just sounds like the big bad companies and governments that have a different ideology to me are evil. There are an abundance of these threads since Parler broke their agreements.

There are alternatives to each of the companies that removed service to Parler, and if Parler had not broken the agreements they made, they would still be online.

Kivaro

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Never before on earth has this much power been wielded by just a few companies.

The ability to change thought through algorithms, I recommend Shosanna Zuboff's 'Surevillance Capitalism' for probably the best argument on regulation.

Big Tech companies are trying to rule the world with their algorithms. You know something is up when you have the EU and both sides of the political spectrum in the States crying out for the regulation of these dangerous behemoths.

ohnonotgmail

Kivaro wrote: »

But instead of spending an absolute fortune on this virtue signaling endeavour, would this money not be better spent alleviating the current suffering with the famines in South Sudan and Yemen?

What he spends his money on is his business. what right do governments have to dictate how private citizens spend their money? you sound like a communist.

MacronvFrugals

Never before on earth has this much power been wielded by just a few companies.

The ability to change thought through algorithms, I recommend Shosanna Zuboff's 'Surevillance Capitalism' for probably the best argument on regulation.

Kivaro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

fair play to him.

But instead of spending an absolute fortune on this virtue signaling endeavour, would this money not be better spent alleviating the current suffering with the famines in South Sudan and Yemen?

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait, I thought right wing people believed in free market capitalism?

And arnt left wing people in favour of regulation?

Kivaro

Snotty wrote: »

Are you saying that Amazon should be regulated to deliver the vaccine?

No sure where you got that from.
I was referring to the Amazon bias in my post.

Snotty

Kivaro wrote: »

If you want to talk about Amazon and their bias, then many Americans are asking why on the first day of Joe Biden's administration, Amazon offers to help with US vaccine delivery. Yet they made no such offer to the prior administration. Did this decision by Amazon result in deaths?

Amazon are now just too big with their many service offerings. The owner of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, is making about $321 million a day and is the second richest man on the planet. Speaking of which, he has made so much money that he now has a Space Program, and he has publicly stated that his space company Blue Origin will take the first woman to the moon.

Are you saying that Amazon should be regulated to deliver the vaccine?
Should they be held criminally responsible for deaths now seen they did offer their service earlier?
Its a private company, if they didn't want to offer any help to the previous administration, that is their prerogative, anything else is just naive

[Deleted User]

Kivaro wrote: »

If you want to talk about Amazon and their bias, then many Americans are asking why on the first day of Joe Biden's administration, Amazon offers to help with US vaccine delivery. Yet they made no such offer to the prior administration. Did this decision by Amazon result in deaths?

Your right they should round up everyone who hasn't officially offered to help deliver the vaccine and blame them for all the deaths that happened especially before the vaccine was ready.

Those people and not the people in positions of power to save lives throughout this pandemic are really the ones at fault.

What utter crap.

Chips Lovell

Isn't requiring them to pay media outlets regulation?

[Deleted User]

Wait, I thought right wing people believed in free market capitalism?

ohnonotgmail

Kivaro wrote: »

If you want to talk about Amazon and their bias, then many Americans are asking why on the first day of Joe Biden's administration, Amazon offers to help with US vaccine delivery. Yet they made no such offer to the prior administration. Did this decision by Amazon result in deaths?

did trump ask him to help? and how do you know he didn't ask?

Kivaro wrote: »

Amazon are now just too big with their many closed service offerings. The owner of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, is making about $321 million a day and is the second richest man on the planet. Speaking of which, he has made so much money that he now has a Space Program, and he has publicly stated that his space company Blue Origin will take the first woman to the moon.

fair play to him.

Kivaro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

AWS? that parler thing really stung didnt it.

If you want to talk about Amazon and their bias, then many Americans are asking why on the first day of Joe Biden's administration, Amazon offers to help with US vaccine delivery. Yet they made no such offer to the prior administration. Did this decision by Amazon result in deaths?

Amazon are now just too big with their many service offerings. The owner of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, is making about $321 million a day and is the second richest man on the planet. Speaking of which, he has made so much money that he now has a Space Program, and he has publicly stated that his space company Blue Origin will take the first woman to the moon.

Snotty

biko wrote: »

It happens all the time.
For instance phone companies all want to only build masts in cities where there are many users.
The governments force them to also provide service in the countryside.

Very different, they are buying a communication license and that is a term of the license.

I provide a coal delivery service for my town, should i be regulated that i have to provide it for the next town over seen they don't have someone currently delivering coal?

And just to add, the regulation that they have to pay for local content, that regulation is 100% correct.

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

AWS, Twitter, Google and Facebook needs to be broken up.
They are much too powerful, don't pay enough taxes and generally seems to become more sinister.

AWS? that parler thing really stung didnt it.

biko

Snotty wrote: »

In this case what regulation exactly?

I would think forcing a private company to provide a service somewhere is does not want to is a much worse scenario.

It happens all the time.
For instance phone companies all want to only build masts in cities where there are many users.
The governments force them to also provide service in the countryside.

ohnonotgmail

Kivaro wrote: »

Regulation would fix this problem. Do you think it is fair that Google threatens to remove access to their search engine from every user in Australia because they do not want to pay for taking content from Australian news sources; sources that have substantial financial overheads? They are paying the French for this, why not the Australians?

fair is nothing to do with it. Google dont think it is commercially viable. Australia is a tiny market. less than half the population of france. If you think they will knuckle under to the australians you are deluded.

[Deleted User]

Yes they do. But not just them, all big media organisations should be strongly regulated and ownership limited so one agenda can't dominate.

Snotty

Kivaro wrote: »

Regulation would fix this problem. Do you think it is fair that Google threatens to remove access to their search engine from every user in Australia because they do not want to pay for taking content from Australian news sources; sources that have substantial financial overheads? They are paying the French for this, why not the Australians?

In this case what regulation exactly?

I would think forcing a private company to provide a service somewhere is does not want to is a much worse scenario.

suicide_circus

Big Tech is run by good progressive people, woke as they come and very aware of their own subconscious biases.

Kivaro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the first paragraph refers to a commercial dispute. Australia want google, FB et al to pay for the content they use. Google, Fb, et al dont want to pay so they withdraw from the australian market. Do you think they should be forced to provide a service under those conditions?

Regulation would fix this problem. Do you think it is fair that Google threatens to remove access to their search engine from every user in Australia because they do not want to pay for taking content from Australian news sources; sources that have substantial financial overheads? They are paying the French for this, why not the Australians?

biko

AWS, Twitter, Google and Facebook needs to be broken up.
They are much too powerful, don't pay enough taxes and generally seems to become more sinister.