Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Does Big Tech need to be regulated?

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Character Building
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭Character Building


    Big Tech needs to go the way of Standard Oil. It is not going to be easy, but ultimately there will have to be a break up of some description. It's not right that corporations can have power and influence many multiples of many sovereign nations. It needs to be checked and hopefully that will come sooner rather than later.

    I read that Facebook may have to offload WhatsApp, how that acquisition was ever allowed in the first place is beyond me.

    To quote No. 2 from Austin Powers:

    "I spent 30 years of my life turning this two-bit evil empire into a world class multi-national. I was going to have a cover story with Forbes. But you, like an idiot, want to take over the world. And you don't realize there is no world anymore! It's only corporations! "

    He wasn't wrong and that movie was 20 years ago.


  • Options
    #63
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,214 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    The argument against breaking up these companies is that the US want them to compete with China on AI. If they split them up then they won’t have the capital to sink into it and China could jump more ahead.


  • Options
    #64
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    fair play to him.

    Nothing to do with "Fair Play", that is the least correct way to to explain JBs wealth.

    I am assuming you are in the legal profession (I recognise the manner), so here is a lawyer showing one of the Amazon dishonest/illegal activities that they get away with every day:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz6NxH3wy94&t=53s

    They use illegal practices like this all the time, and they get away with it because of who they are and the friends they have.

    Have you ever reported a scam advert on FB ? It has no effect, I have reported the same scam 10s of times (as have thousands of others) yet it always reappears. Then you watch MZ giving sworn evidence saying FB do everything they can to prevent fraud, demonstrably wrong rubbish.

    Big tech needs breaking up, and soon. Australia is leading the way, someone has to be first, very brave of them.


  • Options
    #65
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    I do have a fully legitimate question for those pushing for the regulation of "big tech".

    What defines big tech? When does a company become big tech? How would you like to see it regulated, and in what way do you do this?


  • Options
    #66
    Gradius
    Registered Users Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭Gradius


    Most of these companies are the biggest load of nothingness. Overvalued on stock markets to the umpteenth degree, and what do they even do? Glorified entities that, at the end of the day, sell ad-space. Whoop Dee Doo. The evening herald was doing that decades beforehand.


    Nationalise the infrastructure, restructure the internet into a regulated system with actual responsibility and accountability.

    Writing is on the wall for the future of these emperor's in new clothes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    If it wasn't for the Covid catastrophe going on at the moment, there would be bipartisan support in the States to start regulating Big Tech early this year. With support from both sides of the chamber and a Democratic president in charge, regulation of these dangerous billionaire-led "super power" entities is inevitable.

    On the European side, new EU laws are being rolled out to break up the Big Tech monopolies. Massive fines and break ups are threatened for non-compliance of these new laws (Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act).

    With efforts from both sides of the Atlantic, the Big Tech companies who repeatedly abuse anti-competitiveness and privacy laws would finally be regulated. These handful of companies have just too much power over the world's economy and when you see them influencing elections and the democratic process, then they have gone too far.


  • Options
    #68
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Cambridge analytica gamed the system.
    We need regulation in so far as not giving any one agency/company complete control of the supply of information. The consumer not forced to use specific software or services to go about his or her business.

    As for Googles threats, if there's a consumer gap left, it won't be long being filed.


  • Options
    #69
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,150 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I do have a fully legitimate question for those pushing for the regulation of "big tech".

    What defines big tech? When does a company become big tech? How would you like to see it regulated, and in what way do you do this?

    Regulation is inevitable. Either governments do it or they'll do it themselves. People are clearly concerned about the actions of these companies. Their size mean that a miniscule amount of people are making decisions that affect hundreds of millions, if not billions. These companies are tiny in terms of the amount of people they empty and the amount of tax that they pay.

    I think that by asking about what defines big tech, you're missing the point. A non-competitive marketplace culminating in a monopoly benefits few. The regulations should be for the industry as a whole as opposed to just the bigger players.

    As for what they should be, they should involve a digital charter of consumer rights, an independent regulator (or clarification where this exists) and the right for someone to delete their data unimpeded. There's an argument that these companies should be at least partly responsible for illegal content as well as having more of a role in shutting down harassment, death threats, etc...

    I'd also support a digital tax as well on them as well. It's not like McDonald's or similar who actually employ people and support economies on a global scale. It's a very labour-light business so there's no reason for them not to pay up when everyone else has to. Something needs to be done to partly neutralize the first-mover advantage they have. These firms are now so big that they can buy out the competition instead of innovating. I don't know how to achieve this but it is worth mentioning.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #70
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Lmao "the new left". Just another hypocritical talking point.

    It's hilarious and worrying all at once. The corporations in collusion with their cheerleaders from the 'leave capitalism alone' crowd have created monsters they're now desperately trying to reign in.

    The so-called 'left', they cry salty tears about, has been well-and-truly defeated. Literally bad winners, like Brexiters moaning about the consequences of their own idiocy.


  • Options
    #71
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,150 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    It's hilarious and worrying all at once. The corporations in collusion with their cheerleaders from the 'leave capitalism alone' crowd have created monsters they're now desperately trying to reign in.

    The so-called 'left', they cry salty tears about, has been well-and-truly defeated. Literally bad winners, like Brexiters moaning about the consequences of their own idiocy.

    Gas, like. If you said there should be a regulation that water companies can't put bleach in drinking water you were a Stalinist. Then once tech CEO's became uncomfortable with homophobia, racism, misogyny and calls for coups, all of a sudden conservatives now want regulation?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Lewis_Benson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭Lewis_Benson


    Kivaro wrote: »
    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?

    Never heard of Big Tech, who are they?


  • Options
    #73
    joseywhales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,009 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    So we want to punish google for example for being so successful that they are now ubiquitous to the functioning of so many peoples lives, that they can't imagine living without google?

    I would just call that merit. If you don't like a product, do not use it.

    If they break existing anti trust laws they should be prosecuted, same as always but I don't see the need to target a specific sector or group of companies. I appreciate eu legislation on data privacy for example but I would not support a crusade against someone simply because they are too rich, too powerful or too successfull.


  • Options
    #74
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Witness the new Left. Pro billionaires and monopolists.


    Why do you assume that ohnonotgmail's a lefty? A dislike of Trump isn't a good indicator of someone's political persuasion. All it shows is an absence of gullibility which isn't exclusive to the left or the right.


  • Options
    #75
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Invidious wrote: »
    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.


    These tools can of course be used against them. If Biden loses in four years, refuses to accept it and encourages nutters to storm the Capitol, Biden will be banned and he will have deserved it.


    It's like a pub. A tosser getting thrown out because he was starting shít doesn't mean that the quiet couple chatting at a table are going to get thrown out too. Trump was given plenty of warnings and still, he persisted. That's on him and not on the services who gave him so much leeway.


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Regulation is inevitable. Either governments do it or they'll do it themselves. People are clearly concerned about the actions of these companies. Their size mean that a miniscule amount of people are making decisions that affect hundreds of millions, if not billions. These companies are tiny in terms of the amount of people they empty and the amount of tax that they pay.

    I think that by asking about what defines big tech, you're missing the point. A non-competitive marketplace culminating in a monopoly benefits few. The regulations should be for the industry as a whole as opposed to just the bigger players.

    As for what they should be, they should involve a digital charter of consumer rights, an independent regulator (or clarification where this exists) and the right for someone to delete their data unimpeded. There's an argument that these companies should be at least partly responsible for illegal content as well as having more of a role in shutting down harassment, death threats, etc...

    I'd also support a digital tax as well on them as well. It's not like McDonald's or similar who actually employ people and support economies on a global scale. It's a very labour-light business so there's no reason for them not to pay up when everyone else has to. Something needs to be done to partly neutralize the first-mover advantage they have. These firms are now so big that they can buy out the competition instead of innovating. I don't know how to achieve this but it is worth mentioning.

    Yep I'd concur on regulations being needed. I think the EU is the most likely to move towards a workable system.. In terms of "breaking up" companies like Twitter or Facebook or Google or Amazon. I just don't see how it works in principle.

    I'd agree on a means of dealing with them buying up any company of merit. Maybe expand on antitrust regulation etc.

    I do think the sudden concern of posters in this case is more them taking offense when platforms crack down on the likes of parler.


  • Options
    #77
    Deub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Deub


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    Nothing to do with "Fair Play", that is the least correct way to to explain JBs wealth.

    I am assuming you are in the legal profession (I recognise the manner), so here is a lawyer showing one of the Amazon dishonest/illegal activities that they get away with every day:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz6NxH3wy94&t=53s

    They use illegal practices like this all the time, and they get away with it because of who they are and the friends they have.

    Have you ever reported a scam advert on FB ? It has no effect, I have reported the same scam 10s of times (as have thousands of others) yet it always reappears. Then you watch MZ giving sworn evidence saying FB do everything they can to prevent fraud, demonstrably wrong rubbish.

    Big tech needs breaking up, and soon. Australia is leading the way, someone has to be first, very brave of them.

    You should have done more research before posting the link.
    Check this link and you will understand that it is not Amazon that is doing the dishonest/illegal activity (and it is the reason the youtuber says it violates Amazon rules): https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-04/amazon-review-bribe


  • Options
    #78
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Deub wrote: »
    You should have done more research before posting the link.
    Check this link and you will understand that it is not Amazon that is doing the dishonest/illegal activity (and it is the reason the youtuber says it violates Amazon rules): https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-04/amazon-review-bribe

    Think about it a bit more.... who profits from this activity, do you think it needs regulation ? Its an illegal activity, that Amazon benefit from, that happens on their site.


  • Options
    #79
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,146 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Why do you assume that ohnonotgmail's a lefty? A dislike of Trump isn't a good indicator of someone's political persuasion. All it shows is an absence of gullibility which isn't exclusive to the left or the right.

    i asked them the same question and they ran away from the thread. I'm not going to lie, I'm finding it a real tonic to see the posters like them crying now that social media has finally cracked down on the propaganda they consume.


  • Options
    #80
    MeMen2_MoRi_
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭MeMen2_MoRi_


    This caught my eye, don't no the reasons and this is the worrying part.. No idea of their posting history etc..

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1352716628690137088?s=19

    People who have had their accounts closed just on a wim (this is my worry, there wasn't any interaction with these accounts, based off reports) without any warning from these tech companies for them to change their engagement on the platforms is totally wrong.. Best example of being a "tech company" would be along the lines of boards, people sign up to boards rules, yes rules get broken warnings are given, then bans.. then there is engagement with boards mods that you can either say that lessons have been learnt or even giving a lesson to boards that the moderation is being applied to strictly etc.. but I'm the end both seek to learn and move on.

    With regards Donnie, I don't know how many "warnings" regards the labeling of his posts as false information a company can give, they gave him every bit of leeway by simply being POTUS, why should this person be regarded as higher then anyone else.. because he's got a title? The king of England wants a word, and "his land" back.


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yep I'd concur on regulations being needed. I think the EU is the most likely to move towards a workable system.. In terms of "breaking up" companies like Twitter or Facebook or Google or Amazon. I just don't see how it works in principle.

    I'd agree on a means of dealing with them buying up any company of merit. Maybe expand on antitrust regulation etc.

    I do think the sudden concern of posters in this case is more them taking offense when platforms crack down on the likes of parler.

    Amazon could divest AWS. Facebook could lose Instagram. Google could break up alphabet. Apple, not so sure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i asked them the same question and they ran away from the thread. I'm not going to lie, I'm finding it a real tonic to see the posters like them crying now that social media has finally cracked down on the propaganda they consume.

    Lol. I didn't "run away" from the thread, I don't post as much as you. My boards time is night time. And not everyday. You might take a break yourself.

    I am a leftist, albeit of the old school ant-American imperialism, high taxes on wealth, pro union type. I think I put "leftist" in quotes, if not I apologise. I don't consider US Democratic Party supporters in the us, or their absurd supporters in Ireland, leftists. In general the cruise missile left makes me want to vomit.

    Its a bit odd to proclaim you were represented btw and then to say that:
    It going to lie, I'm finding it a real tonic to see the posters like them crying now that social media has finally cracked down on the propaganda they consume.

    I consume no propoganda, no CNN, no Fox News, no Twitter, no Facebook. On WhatsApp I follow friends and family. On the other hand you and the others who agree are assuming that people opposed to Big Tech are all right wingers, it was pretty clear that I was talking about breaking up the corporations I was talking anti-trust in the US, and the EU cases are also anti monopolists.


  • Options
    #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Why do you assume that ohnonotgmail's a lefty? A dislike of Trump isn't a good indicator of someone's political persuasion. All it shows is an absence of gullibility which isn't exclusive to the left or the right.

    And I didn't say anything about Trump either. That man is living rent free in your mind. Maybe give the old CNN a miss?


  • Options
    #84
    MeMen2_MoRi_
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭MeMen2_MoRi_


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Lol. I didn't "run away" from the thread, I don't post as much as you. My boards time is night time. And not everyday. You might take a break yourself.

    I am a leftist, albeit of the old school ant-American imperialism, high taxes on wealth, pro union type. I think I put "leftist" in quotes, if not I apologise. I don't consider US Democratic Party supporters in the us, or their absurd supporters in Ireland, leftists. In general the cruise missile left makes me want to vomit.

    Its a bit odd to proclaim you were represented btw and then to say that:



    I consume no propoganda, no CNN, no Fox News, no Twitter, no Facebook. On WhatsApp I follow friends and family. On the other hand you and the others who agree are assuming that people opposed to Big Tech are all right wingers, it was pretty clear that I was talking about breaking up the corporations I was talking anti-trust in the US, and the EU cases are also anti monopolists.

    I hope you're a new user of Signal, advocate for all who you talk with to move from WhatsApp


  • Options
    #85
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »
    This caught my eye, don't no the reasons and this is the worrying part.. No idea of their posting history etc..
    ....
    Glenn Greenwald is one of the most reputable and principled journalists around - to the point that Edward Snowden chose him for releasing the NSA papers. Pretty brave guy, he and his partner live in Brazil even under death threats from Bolsonaro supporters - while journalistically bloodying Bolsonaro's nose in the media - even after one of their close friends, the politician Marielle Franco, was murdered by militiamen directly tied to Bolsonaro's family.

    If stuff like the tweet above doesn't immediately ring massive alarm bells for people, then we're on the path to slipping into authoritarianism very quickly - as quite a lot of people seem to be perfectly fine with censoring everything except 'centrist'/mainstream politics.

    The logical conclusion of the way things are going, if they are allowed to continue down this path, is a lot like Glenn's situation in Brazil: People on the left won't merely be censored, eventually they will be targeted with violent suppression and murder - and as more time passes and authoritarianism increases, will have to consider whether it is safe for them to even stay in the country/region at all - much like how many intellectuals and members of ethnic/political groups fled Germany before it was too late.

    It's not the crazy far-right parties, whose suppression is the excuse for the scary rise in authoritarianism, that will gradually move in this direction - it is the poliical groups and parties already in power - they are the authoritarian threat, not the fringe far-right.


  • Options
    #86
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Lol. I didn't "run away" from the thread, I don't post as much as you. My boards time is night time. And not everyday. You might take a break yourself.

    I am a leftist, albeit of the old school ant-American imperialism, high taxes on wealth, pro union type. I think I put "leftist" in quotes, if not I apologise.
    I don't get the alt/far right responses on the topic of Big Tech regulation when it is obvious that support for it comes from all spectrums of the political/social divide. Maybe it is just a lack of understanding/intellect on the topic. There are many posters like yourself who would be classified as far right because you don't fully agree with them. It's odd.


  • Options
    #87
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,615 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Snotty wrote: »
    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.

    An amusing anecdotes. But in the cows case a small hedge hides the cows arse from view.

    In the context of social media the fault is heavily designed in. En engineer sat for a year writing code to grab as much crap from the far reaches of the platform to feed into someone's brain.

    There are solutions to everything you just have to look for them . People seem to think this is as random and uncontrollable as cows arses don't understand the amplification of coded AI


  • Options
    #88
    Deub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭Deub


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    Think about it a bit more.... who profits from this activity, do you think it needs regulation ? Its an illegal activity, that Amazon benefit from, that happens on their site.

    Your posts on this are misleading. In your first post you make it look like the action is from Amazon when it is not. You do the same in the post above. Reading it you would think all the profits go to Amazon which is not true. I wonder why the seller does it if he doesn’t get any benefits. Since you thought about it more, what regulations do you suggest?
    Genuine question. It would protect everyone from dodgy sellers on all platforms (ebay, donedeal, etc)


  • Options
    #89
    mohawk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,781 ✭✭✭mohawk


    Kivaro wrote: »
    I don't get the alt/far right responses on the topic of Big Tech regulation when it is obvious that support for it comes from all spectrums of the political/social divide. Maybe it is just a lack of understanding/intellect on the topic. There are many posters like yourself who would be classified as far right because you don't fully agree with them. It's odd.

    I don’t think it’s a right/left issue either. Monopolies are never a good thing no matter what sector it’s in. I think that posters throw around the term far right as a way to shut down discussion of anything they don’t like or agree with.
    You can argue that the mainstream media is regulated. There are journalism standards etc that have to be met. That’s all well and good but I am in my mid 30’s and many people my age or younger aren’t reading newspapers or watching the news. They hear the news from social media. Social media has made the divide between democrats and republicans way worse in the US because of the echo chamber effect. That can happen here too.


  • Options
    #90
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    mohawk wrote: »
    Social media has made the divide between democrats and republicans way worse in the US because of the echo chamber effect. That can happen here too.

    I think the opposite effect can be seen in Ireland. Once, there used to be a healthy spectrum of public opinion. Now, social media is used to berate and castigate everyone into thinking the same way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I used to think Google was a force for good in the world, democratizing knowledge for a bright new world. The motto Don't be evil was so simple but effective.

    Along the way they seem to have been infiltrated by a lot of people with agendas that are slowly rotting the company and turning it into a nasty bully.


Advertisement