Hacker News Reader

Comment by vxNsr | Hacker News Reader

Well, let me break it down for you: The US political landscape looks like this:

Republicans want deregulation everywhere, no matter the cost, the second you talk about limiting big business or monopoly busting they run away.

Democrats on the other hand rely heavily on favors from the tech establishment to keep their agendas front and center and hide any downsides, this means letting BigTech(tm) have free reign.

Thus both parties are incentivized to look the other way. Only recently did the Republicans wake up to TOO BIG = bad; but their solutions are all terrible and thankfully were never entertained by any meaningful majority. Meanwhile the democrats are working very hard to cement the current big tech conglomerates into having control and power so you can expect more of the same.

View on HN

> the second you talk about limiting big business or monopoly busting they run away

Unless big business is de-platforming right-wing content, in which case this principle is instantly forgotten and we need regulation and monopolies need to be broken up...

> Only recently did the Republicans wake up to TOO BIG = bad; but their solutions are all terrible and thankfully were never entertained by any meaningful majority.

Covered that here

The parties have changed since whenever you last read up on this (four years ago? ten years ago?).

Gop politicians (for Republicans call themselves this) don't care about deregulation anymore -- they just want to funnel money and power to the wealthy.

Dem politicians now seem very excited about breaking up Facebook and Google.

Both parties want to hurt Google and Facebook for perceived political bias. Gop politicians want this because Google and Facebook sometimes allow some left-of-center voices to occasionally penetrate their newsfeeds. Dem politicians want this because Facebook has been a vector for QAnon and other wingnut-terrorist radicalization.

> Gop politicians (for Republicans call themselves this) don't care about deregulation anymore -- they just want to funnel money and power to the wealthy.

It almost makes one wonder if that's what deregulation was for all along....

> Gop

Is GOP, it's an acronym for Grand Old Party.

But I was just describing the current climate, the Repubs, never cared about dereg until recently when they realized that FB and Google are abusing their power, but all the GOP solutions involved draconian backwards thinking that would only make things worse.

> Both parties want to hurt Google and Facebook for perceived political bias.

Not quite, GOP wants to hurt 'em, Dems are very happy with them, and all their "dereg" is basically aimed at giving them more power.

Democrats have been very vocal and, more recently, active about bringing antitrust actions against big tech for the last 4 years now, with Senator Elizabeth Warren campaigning for President on a tech trust-busting platform.

Rather than link to those campaign promises, I'll point out that the current legislative strategy for restoring competition to the tech sector is being spearheaded by Democratic Representative David Cicilline. [0]

Additionally, Professor Tim Wu's appointment to the National Economic Council by the Biden administration speaks volumes of the urgency for antitrust action on the part of the Democratic party. [1]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-big-tech-antitrust/u-...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/technology/tim-wu-white-h...

I'm inclined to think democrats talking about anti trust in relation to tech firms are more looking for influence than honest-to-god anti trust.

It's much easier to get companies to move your way if you threaten them with broad investigations into their activities. They're much more likely to behave the way you want later.

That doesn't change the real danger these companies represent to the continued freedoms and viability of society, given the current social media feedback loop and the death of journalism as a result of tech.

We're in uncharted territory.

> It's much easier to get companies to move your way if you threaten them with broad investigations into their activities.

It's also much easier to enforce antitrust by initiating antitrust legislation.

Currently, the strategy of broad investigations is yielding to multiple focused pieces of legislation spearheaded by David Cicilline (link in GP).

>It's also much easier to enforce antitrust by initiating antitrust legislation.

Sure, but I don't think thats the case.

>Currently, the strategy of broad investigations is yielding to multiple focused pieces of legislation spearheaded by David Cicilline (link in GP).

I think you have it backwards.

From what I can see David Cicilline will go after social media for pushing 'misinformation' and call for even harsher corporate censorship in the name of information security, and will likely want to alter section 230 to make it easier to punish them for algorithmic 'misinformation' rather than to push more freedom for normal people.

Don't expect more freedoms, expect more control. They aren't going after these companies in your defense, they're doing it to control them and use their power against their enemies. They'll use misinformation and election security and whatever else just as a cover for making things worse but being in control.

Democrats aren't a unified political party the way Republicans are, especially on issues like regulation of business. Some Dems are corporate-friendly and want contributions from lobbyists; others are social democrats who are distressed about corporate dominance. So it depends on who you're talking about: AOC and Joe Manchin aren't going to have the same perspective.

>Democrats aren't a unified political party the way Republicans are,

This is unnecessary and also incorrect comparison

>Some Dems are corporate-friendly and want contributions from lobbyists; others are social democrats who are distressed about corporate dominance.

True, but not relevant. There's a reason Warren stayed in the primaries long enough to make sure Bernie couldn't proceed - and Kamala Harris who didn't go anywhere is now Vice President. There are functional powerblocks that are making decisions, whether the party is unified or not.

>So it depends on who you're talking about: AOC and Joe Manchin aren't going to have the same perspective.

That has nothing to do with what the effective leadership and powerblocks are doing, and both can be used to push a position that does what the powerblock wants by propandazing it in their perspective.

Tech regulation is good! AOC can push it because it will protect against misinformation, protect minorities against hate, and guard against russian intrusion in elections similar to what allowed Trump to be elected. See how easy it is? It's just spin. spin is not what the actual politics going on are.

> Rather than link to those campaign promises, I'll point out that the current legislative strategy for restoring competition to the tech sector is being spearheaded by Democratic Representative David Cicilline.

I wouldn't say Cicilline is spearheading anything. However, it's good that after 26 years as a politician, Cicilline now "is preparing to come out with 10 or more pieces of legislation targeting Big Tech companies" [0]

But, don't forget that Ciccilline went to prison after he "pleaded guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements for his role in the courthouse corruption scheme" [1]

Regarding fiscal competance, Fitch Ratings also downgraded Providence's ratings, and Cicilline was accused of "hiding the scope of the city's fiscal woes through 'illusory revenues, borrowing and other tricks.'"

Cicilline may do something positive today, but there are better people to be the "face of anti-trust." I'd still be wary, due to his past criminal activities, that he isn't continuing to engage in the same practices one more time.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-big-tech-antitrust/u-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cicilline#Controversies

This is mostly about forcing BigTech(tm) to censor more free speech and calling that legislation "breaking up big tech" it's anything but.

I will admit that Warren has been beating the monopoly busting drum for 10 years now, unfortunately she's kinda made herself irrelevant with her other policies and claims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com