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; } } }

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

[Deleted User]

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

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.

Invidious

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

ohnonotgmail

Kivaro wrote: »

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?

maybe if you made some better points I wouldn't sound so annoyed. "I don't like how somebody spends their money" is a particularly stupid thing to say.

Kivaro

Snotty wrote: »

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?

They should be broken up. Plain and simple. It was done previously with the giant electric and telecom monopolies in the States. Those massive companies were dangerously big, with anti-competitive and oppressive business practices, similar to the Big Tech companies. The break up of the old monopolies in the States were necessary, with the important point to remember is that it led to a number of very successful spinoffs. The breakups actually drove innovation further.

Now that I've answered your question, what is your argument for not breaking up Big Tech?
Edit: Before answering, maybe take a look at KyussB's post below also.

KyussB

People seem to have lost all concept of the ethics of anti-monopoly/anti-trust and civil liberties issues.

Authoritarian monopolization of whole industries by the powerful, coupled with authoritarian restrictions of civil liberties by the powerful, seems to be viewed as a legitimate and desired response, for opposing powerless fringe movements which are perceived as an authoritarian threat.

The oligarchs who actually do have power (including the tech oligarchs), seem to have successfully bought out and operate revolving doors, with all of the western governments/parties who have enough power to oppose them.

When monopolists/oligarchs wield so much power over the economy, then we don't really have free competition i.e. Capitalism anymore. When the same oligarchs have successfully bought-out/corrupted all political parties that are capable of entering government, then we don't really have a Democracy anymore, either.

This is a much scarier rise in authoritarianism, than even the War on Terror era of civil liberties rollbacks. If we don't remove the power of these oligarchs, and split up the organizations they control (including but not limited to the tech oligarchs and organizations) - then the rise of authoritarianism and oligarchs will continue - until we permanently shift away from capitalism and begin entering into neo-feudalism.

Kivaro

Ok then. See my previous post ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And KyussB's post.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe if you made some better points I wouldn't sound so annoyed. "I don't like how somebody spends their money" is a particularly stupid thing to say.

growleaves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Antitrust laws are one of the things which are meant to guarantee a free, open market.

In practice the biggest tech ‘industries' receive massive invisible injections of funding from selective tax breaks, corporate welfare, subsidies, manufactured/ guaranteed ‘markets’ and so on.

listermint

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

Yet it's a hotbed for right and left wing extremism and has resulted in absolute polarisation pushing more and more people away from the middle ground over a ridiculously short period of time . 5 years.

The notion social media companies are enabling woke and progressiveness is not born out by any facts from the last 5 years of joke mobile politicians getting into power .

These companies should be held accountable for the content they are pushing to their users. It's created a darker and sadder world. And it's only going one direction.

[Deleted User]

Snotty wrote: »

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.

I Like the way it has become left wing or woke to defend tech monopolists since they ganged up on Trump..

Prior to that it was the left calling for the breakup, it might still be on the agenda for the new admin in the US. Certainly the EU is also trying to pressurise the tech giants.

And other countries. Just today Google has threatened to pull search from Australia because of an Australian law which depends that google pay for news links. As it happens I don't agree with this law, but it is the kind of thing that can be done.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

And I thought that left wing people believed in breaking up monopolies and anti-Trust

The only reason the modern"left" has a temporary alliance with Big Tech is merely their recent actions on Trump. Eventually that will fade and it will become fairly fashionable again to legislate against Big Tech ( which I agree with).

Your opinion will change as that happens.

TomTomTim

KyussB wrote: »

People seem to have lost all concept of the ethics of anti-monopoly/anti-trust and civil liberties issues.

Authoritarian monopolization of whole industries by the powerful, coupled with authoritarian restrictions of civil liberties by the powerful, seems to be viewed as a legitimate and desired response, for opposing powerless fringe movements which are perceived as an authoritarian threat.

The oligarchs who actually do have power (including the tech oligarchs), seem to have successfully bought out and operate revolving doors, with all of the western governments/parties who have enough power to oppose them.

When monopolists/oligarchs wield so much power over the economy, then we don't really have free competition i.e. Capitalism anymore. When the same oligarchs have successfully bought-out/corrupted all political parties that are capable of entering government, then we don't really have a Democracy anymore, either.

This is a much scarier rise in authoritarianism, than even the War on Terror era of civil liberties rollbacks. If we don't remove the power of these oligarchs, and split up the organizations they control (including but not limited to the tech oligarchs and organizations) - then the rise of authoritarianism and oligarchs will continue - until we permanently shift away from capitalism and begin entering into neo-feudalism.

I rarely agree with you, but respect that fact you're actually an old school leftist in your anti corporate power views. It's a sad state of affairs when many on the left now rabidly defend corporate power, purely because there's some ideological benefit in the now. It's very short sighted, and may eventually end up haunting them.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

fair play to him [Bezos for being a multi billionaire].

Witness the new Left. Pro billionaires and monopolists.

Snotty

Kivaro wrote: »

Now that I've answered your question, what is your argument for not breaking up Big Tech?
Edit: Before answering, maybe take a look at KyussB's post below also.

My argument is how, breaking them up means absolutely zero.
I'm guessing you have heard of companies being "broken up" and assume just any company can be on any basis that doesn't meet your current morals.
You've heard of airlines, electrics, telecommunications and probably others, but the big difference here is all of those are heavily regulated, requiring license and government sign off to even operate in the country, an online retail giant (or search engine) needs no such sign off, so again how?
You've probably heard the rubbish spouted by some politicians looking for the next populous topic to sway a few voters, its all just hot air. If the US (as home) wanted to break up Amazon, then they need to regulate retail, basically you would need a license to sell good, how would that work?
Maybe they would just target online, but what about me as a little sole trader selling my beads out of my bedroom, so i need a license too?
Outrage is nothing without solutions.

Look, i'm no fan of amazon, i dont buy anything from it for a reason, horrible company, but if you think shouting regulate them actually means anything, you are sorely wrong.

Invidious

TomTomTim wrote: »

I rarely agree with you, but respect that fact you're actually an old school leftist in your anti corporate power views. It's a sad state of affairs when many on the left now rabidly defend corporate power, purely because there's some ideological benefit in the now. It's very short sighted, and may eventually end up haunting them.

Much of the global left was cheering with delight as Twitter & Facebook de-platformed the democratically elected president of the United States, without giving a thought to what that actually meant in terms of corporate power to silence and censor. The fact that the same tools can be used against adherents of their own ideology doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

Witness the new Left. Pro billionaires and monopolists.

There's a very weird conflict with this stuff that goes beyond sense. If you go to the likes of Bernie Sanders Twitter feed, you'll find many in the comments saying:"eat the rich", "there should be no millionaires". Essentially all the comments will be of an extreme variant of anti capitalism. Yet many of those same posters gladly support these big tech companies and their ever growing empires, without any awareness of the irony.

Snotty

Deleted User wrote: »

I Like the way it has become left wing or woke to defend tech monopolists since they ganged up on Trump..

I think this is the first time i have every been accused of being on the left, thank you:cool:

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Witness the new Left. Pro billionaires and monopolists.

who the **** said I was "left", whatever that actually means these days. have you considered getting a new record? It is hilarious that people like you are now very keen for regulation now that social media companies are getting rid of your vile opinions.

ancapailldorcha

Of course they need to be regulated. This has been obvious for years. However, it should be done to enforce consumer's rights instead of conservative privileges and fabricated victimhood. We regulate virtually everything else and anyone who was arguing for the libertarian utopianism of unfettered free markets can hopefully see that this is where it leads. You either regulate big tech or it'll set its own standards. At least the state is directly responsible to its citizens. We're moving to an ever more datacentric world and it's baffling that governments are only just waking up to this. At least the EU brought in GDPR but that's not nearly enough.

Kivaro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who the **** said I was "left", whatever that actually means these days. have you considered getting a new record? It is hilarious that people like you are now very keen for regulation now that social media companies are getting rid of your vile opinions.

Looks like this is core to your view then.
Social media companies having the ability to remove the views of people at the whim of a billionaire's strategic political/social alignment for business purposes (i.e. to enrich himself and his stockholders) is dangerous. That whim could easily switch sides, depending on the value proposition for the billionaire. These billionaires, just like the Russian oligarchs who have pillaged their own country's resources for their own benefit, are just too powerful.

ohnonotgmail

Kivaro wrote: »

Looks like this is core to your view then.
Social media companies having the ability to remove the views of people at the whim of a billionaire's strategic political/social alignment for business purposes (i.e. to enrich himself and his stockholders) is dangerous. That whim could easily switch sides, depending on the value proposition for the billionaire. These billionaires, just like the Russian oligarchs who have pillaged their own country's resources for their own benefit, are just too powerful.

no whim required. their rules are transparent. You break them, off you go.

TomTomTim

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no whim required. their rules are transparent. You break them, off you go.

Nonsense. "Hate speech" is one of the most nebulous terms in politics, and it's contained in all their rules. Something highly subjective is not transparent. Twitter were banning users for both the NPC meme & the "learn to code" meme. How did either of those things break their rules?

ohnonotgmail

TomTomTim wrote: »

Nonsense. "Hate speech" is one of the most nebulous terms in politics, and it's contained in all their rules. Something highly subjective is not transparent. Twitter were banning users for both the NPC meme & the "learn to code" meme. How did either of those things break their rules?

how do you expect me to comment on specific instances I am not aware of?

Sonics2k

Lmao "the new left". Just another hypocritical talking point.

For decades the right and conservatives have pushed for a free market and to allow corporations to do as they wish and get massive tax write offs.

It's the left pushing to get corporations to pay more tax, to improve workers rights, get companies like Amazon to recognize trade unions, improve social benefits and care.

Suddenly the right have a problem with corporate power because "muh freedom of speech".

Get a damn clue what freedom of speech is. Trump still has the right to express his views and lies, and the government isn't suppressing it.

Edit. I'm well up for regulation of corporations and other massive entities. I just love the hypocrisy and stupid talking point you lot come up with.

MacronvFrugals

The genius of social media is having hundreds of millions of people believing they are all individuals while being assorted into highly targeted categories consisting of endless data points.

This weaponized has the potential for endless damage ie Brexit and Trump

joseywhales

I don't understand, google provides a service people want, aus government want to impose charges on news, google decides its not worth it, people are upset. Google isnt your mom, they aren't obliged to help you. It not a service that's vital to life like water, they have no obligation to provide it.

Snotty

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand, google provides a service people want, aus government want to impose charges on news, google decides its not worth it, people are upset. Google isnt your mom, they aren't obliged to help you. It not a service that's vital to life like water, they have no obligation to provide it.

Dont come in here with logic, we need to regulate......something....something......oligarchs.

Im reminded of the woman selling her house rang up complaining about how the cows arses are always up against the fence next to her kitchen window and it was unsightly. People here would be calling for the direction of the cows arse to be regulated without one iota of what that actually means or how it could be achieved in any meaningful way, but never let that get in the way of ranting.

Kivaro

Snotty wrote: »

Dont come in here with logic .....

You may need to re-examine your understanding of logic.

aus government want to impose charges on news

This is not true. The Australian legislation wants Google and Facebook to pay local media organisations to host news content, just like the agreement Google made with France yesterday.

Big Tech companies are making fortunes on advertising revenue from their current process; money that should really be shared with local news outlets. This is an antitrust and anti-competitive issue. Local news outlets are in dire financial difficulty while Big Tech gain huge profits on content that does not belong to them.

Potatoeman

Fighting Tao wrote: »

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.

They should have hosted themselves. Bad planning on their part. Though it should warn anyone using hosting services that you don’t control your data.

Kivaro

Potatoeman wrote: »

They should have hosted themselves. Bad planning on their part. Though it should warn anyone using hosting services that you don’t control your data.

It is inevitable that there will now be a switch by many companies and organisations from Big Tech hosted services to local/owned hosted services in the future due to what happened with this incident. Even for benign companies, the thought of getting shut off to your service and data by the hosting service for whatever reason is very worrying. I'm sure that legal contracts and hosting agreements are now under the microscope, with addendums in the works until they can start hosting services themselves.

Potatoeman

Kivaro wrote: »

It is inevitable that there will now be a switch by many companies and organisations from Big Tech hosted services to local/owned hosted services in the future due to what happened with this incident. Even for benign companies, the thought of getting shut off to your service and data by the hosting service for whatever reason is very worrying. I'm sure that legal contracts and hosting agreements are now under the microscope, with addendums in the works until they can start hosting services themselves.

Everyone’s share price took a hit. Suddenly competition is more viable. Twitter and Facebook too, it was incredibly bad timing. Investors hear tech power grab and get nervous. Could have waited a month or two and spread it all out and wouldn’t have been as big of an issue.