Soros calls Facebook and Google a menace to society and obstacles to innovation
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
Unlike previous uses of Antitrust law, it's not really plausible to simply split along geographic boundaries, sorting a few shared assets into one company or another, since the whole point of these companies is irrelevance of geographic boundaries.
Similarly, splitting along product lines is particularly challenging in tech companies, where everything is extremely integrated -- nevermind that Facebook and Google each have essentially one profit center, in advertisements. You couldn't very well split Google Flights out into its own corp. Even if you did, the search corp would still dominate.
Even if the political will is summoned to apply Antitrust legislation to tech giants, I'm not sure what an enforcement would look like.
I think what this actually points to is that Antitrust isn't the right lever: the problem is lax regulation, lax enforcement of existing regulation, and bad policy around lobbying efforts.
However, many of the most objectionable challenges posed by these companies -- challenges such as tracking, lack of privacy, putting people in to filter bubbles and otherwise manipulating what they see or how they see it -- are not really addressed merely by splitting them up.
Laws and regulatory structures have to go further to limit and channel their behavior.
It's not really surprising when you recognize that not everyone to the left of the US Republican Party is part of a homogenous, unified faction.
edit: made more specific.
Depending on your definition of “recently”, I can think of at least three, none of which seem on point (though the UK one about data collection might be arguably connectable to an argument about a need for anti-trust action.)
You literally just did by using the case to answer a question about the need for anti-trust action.
> I'm just pointing where there is perceived imbalance caused by the dominance these tech companies have.
But the case doesn't support that; it supports (taking its allegations—many of which are diametrically opposed to those in the other recent employment discrimination class-action against Google—as true for the sake of argument) a claim of an imbalance within Google, but not the existence of an imbalance in society caused by Google (whether through its dominance in some areas or otherwise.)
It stands to reason that outward imbalance begins with inward imbalance and pointing to bias within the company culture is relevant when it comes to validating why there might be an outward imbalance in how their products are run.
Again, I'm responding to someone asking "what needs balance". If you don't agree with me it might be more useful to provide a more compelling opinion instead of picking my words apart.
If you take the position that this would all be OK if it had worked out for a Hillary win, then you have two problems:
1. Assuming that one side is always right is very dangerous - it blinds you to their flaws. One side is not composed of angels, and it does not have a divine right to be president.
2. Creating power that is fine "as long as the right people use the power" is extremely short-sited. The wrong people inevitably find ways to use the power.
https://polispandit.com/2017/11/15/antitrust-and-big-tech/
"On Monday, November 13, 2017, Missouri’s attorney general, Josh Hawley, launched an investigation into Google’s handling of its consumer’s data, and whether it manipulated search results to favor its own products. The investigation will focus on three issues, according to Mr. Hawley:
Scope – the depth and breadth of Google’s data collection;
Abuse of market position; and
Use of competitor content as its own in search results
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/15/free-speech-social-...
"Gab, the free speech social network, has filed a lawsuit against Google after they were suspended without warning from Google’s Play Store last month."
Gab is the alt-right-friendly alternative to Twitter.
There's no evidence to suggest that Steve Bannon's views are representative of the right in the United States, only evidence to refute it.
> "There could be an alliance between authoritarian states and these large, data-rich IT monopolies that would bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developed system of state-sponsored surveillance," he said. "This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined."
It's possible, but the big US companies seem to have good intent. I'd be more wary of big China tech for totalitarian control over information presented to users and their interaction with the tech systems.
Having multiple giants with competing interests might help to combat the risk that one of them turns to this.
I'd be more sympathetic if it seemed he wanted Big Tech less powerful, instead of simply transferring control of that power to elected officials that are cheaper to buy than controlling interests in Big Tech companies.
This tactics is as old as the laws, we should recognize it instantly.
I know everyone who reports for a Rupert Murdock or Mercer family property seems to hate Soros. That's a bit fishy.
And the people who hate him the most are also some of the worst wingnuts on the internet: Alex Jones, Daily Stormer, David Duke.