Watching the fanboys defend their favorite tech giant is incredible. These companies are not behaving in the markets or people's best interest and they are way too big, at a scale that dwarfs most of the worlds organizations.
Watching the fanboys defend their favorite tech giant is incredible. These companies are not behaving in the markets or people's best interest and they are way too big, at a scale that dwarfs most of the worlds organizations.
It's not illegal to be big, it's illegal to use your influence to prevent competition in a way that's illegal. There's zero evidence of that, which is why she's talking about a new law.
And please refrain from calling those that disagree with you "fanboys". It diminishes every single point you're attempting to make, because you sound like a jaded teenager rather than an adult that wants to have a conversation.
I never said that it was.
In the past we've taken a harder stance on giants like this and as a matter of precedence we can do it again.
If a person doesn't break any pre-existing laws, then they must not suffer any legal consequences, sure. And nobody is suggesting that Page and Brin should spend a minute in court or pay a cent in fines.
But a corporation isn't a person, it's a business instrument, and if the United States were to judge that the existence of that instrument is detrimental to the greater security / stability / welfare of the nation as a whole, they would have every right to write a new law to ban usage of that instrument, i.e. ban the existence of Google in its current form, as they once wrote a new law to ban the existence of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation.
This may be worth it for society, but it's a little too convenient to say no people will be harmed.