Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 9:59am #1

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?

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 10:01am

I dont get the connection between the first paragraph and the second.

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 10:04am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont get the connection between the first paragraph and the second.

Regulation would have possibly stopped both from happening.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 10:06am

Kivaro wrote: »

Regulation would have possibly stopped both from happening.

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?

biko · 22-01-2021 10:11am

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.

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 10:11am

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?

suicide_circus · 22-01-2021 10:13am

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

Snotty · 22-01-2021 10:14am

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.

riffmongous · 22-01-2021 10:16am

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

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 10:16am

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.

biko · 22-01-2021 10:17am

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 · 22-01-2021 10:17am

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.

Snotty · 22-01-2021 10:20am

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.

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 10:44am

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.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 10:46am

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.

22-01-2021 10:51am

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

Chips Lovell · 22-01-2021 10:51am

Isn't requiring them to pay media outlets regulation?

RobbieTheRobber · 22-01-2021 10:52am

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.

Snotty · 22-01-2021 10:52am

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

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 11:03am

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.

suicide_circus · 22-01-2021 11:06am

Deleted User wrote: »

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

And arnt left wing people in favour of regulation?

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 11:07am

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?

MacronvFrugals · 22-01-2021 11:08am

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.

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 11:08am

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.

Kivaro · 22-01-2021 11:14am

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.

Fighting Tao · 22-01-2021 11:17am

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 · 22-01-2021 11:17am

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?

22-01-2021 11:18am

suicide_circus wrote: »

And arnt left wing people in favour of regulation?

Yes?

MacronvFrugals · 22-01-2021 11:19am

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

Invidious · 22-01-2021 11:19am

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.

Snotty · 22-01-2021 11:20am

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.

22-01-2021 11:20am

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

Chips Lovell · 22-01-2021 11:37am

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 · 22-01-2021 11:44am

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

ohnonotgmail · 22-01-2021 11:46am

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 · 22-01-2021 11:50am

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 · 22-01-2021 11:50am

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 · 22-01-2021 11:51am

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 · 22-01-2021 12:07pm

[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 · 22-01-2021 12:10pm

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.

22-01-2021 12:14pm

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 · 22-01-2021 12:17pm

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.

22-01-2021 12:21pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

Witness the new Left. Pro billionaires and monopolists.

Snotty · 22-01-2021 12:22pm

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 · 22-01-2021 12:22pm

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 · 22-01-2021 12:26pm

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 · 22-01-2021 12:29pm

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 · 22-01-2021 12:36pm

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 · 22-01-2021 1:04pm

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 · 22-01-2021 1:04pm

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 · 22-01-2021 1:09pm

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.

Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

Comments