Hacker News Reader

Comment by oarabbus_ | Hacker News Reader

Let's break up the big Tech giants, but leave Big Banking and Big Pharma alone (for example)? How come Comcast gets to operate as an ISP and Telecom and suppress competition, but Google, Amazon, and Facebook are illegal monopolies that need to allegedly be broken up by Government? It reeks of targeting.

View on HN

Re banking:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/wall-street

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/holding-wall-street-accoun...

Re ISPs:

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/invest-rural

(See "A Public Option for Broadband")

Thanks for these.

I read the banking one, she's advocating for tougher legislation, greater separation of investment and commercial banking, etc. These are all great ideas.

I don't think many reasonable people don't think Facebook, Google, Amazon etc should not be more _regulated_. Yes, let's increase data privacy laws, close tax loopholes, make sure these Tech giants are paying their fair share in taxes, etc.

I think the links prove my statement, that she's talking about regulating Banking and Pharma, but she's talking about _breaking up_ Tech giants; therein lies the problem.

Banking already has separations in the Volcker rule (And Dodd-Frank overall, which have been loosened under the current administration), and arguably has already been broken up along the lines Warren is proposing.

Massive pools of data, especially about people, being all of 1) hugely valuable to AI, 2) very, very hard to bootstrap without massive amounts of money (so, a strong moat to competition), and 3) basically the Stasi on steroids but oh don't worry it's fine because it's for profit this time, is the main reason I'd like to see at least Facebook and Google take a huge hit. As in I'd like that part of their value to be regulated out of existence entirely, because I think it's awful at best and incredibly dangerous at worst.

Are you trolling? Her agenda is going after essentially "too big" everything. Banking and pharma have been on her list longer than big tech.

Let's try to engage rationally instead of baseless "are you trolling" attacks.

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of warren knows her lengthy history with advocating for consumer rights. I mean, you seem to be trolling and engaging in bad faith. A look at a Wikipedia page would suggest your initial comment was ludicrous.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy...

Be the change you wish to see, don’t cherry pick a single article specifically about tech, here’s just a couple about Warrens plans to break up both banks and pharmaceutical companies:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/15/warren-calls...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzvy4w/elizabeth-warren-i...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/17/elizabeth-warren-b...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-warren-eyes-white-house-big-...

While I think “are you trolling” could come off as a bit harsh, it’s better to confront bad faith actors than to engage with them.

I think your links prove my point, actually.

The article you provided is from 2015; her talk about breaking up Big Banks seems to have stopped once she started campaigning and platforming for her current run. Since then, she's focused on Tech.

Regarding Pharma, she's talking about allowing the government to produce generics i.e. increase competition to the coporations, which is very different than actually tearing a company apart using antitrust legislation. I don't think even Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos would have an issue with it if that's what she was trying to do with Tech.

Suddenly the goalposts have shifted from Warren unfairly targeting tech companies to Warren unfairly targeting tech companies with anti trust lawsuits

Ironically, you're the one moving the goalposts here.

The topic at hand is warren proposing _BREAKING UP_ large tech companies, while not doing the same to non-tech companies. Please stay on topic.

Elizabeth Warren has made calls to _BREAK UP_ big banks and pharma companies for her entire career. She has literally used those exact words SEVERAL TIMES idk what to tell you.

She is not targeting those industries with anti trust legislation because it’s inappropriate. Antitrust is not the only means with which to disrupt or break up companies.

I’m perfectly on topic dude, you griped about how Warren is so unfair to the poor tech companies but there is an insurmountable wealth of evidence that she has had various problem industries in her sights for _DECADES_

Your ONLY rebuttal was to mention anti trust laws, which is ignorant at best. This is currently topical because people are currently talking about it, that doesn’t mean she is leading a disproportionate effort to dismantle tech companies.

What value is Facebook bringing to the world, honestly?

Isn’t it just a skinner box that they’ve attached ads to?

...and this is justification for the government to break up the company, is that the claim being made here?

We the people have the ability to break up a company.

The company serves the people.

This is why we elect other people to represent our interests.

What value does a virtual skinner box serve? I think at one point Facebook did have value, then it changed

You seem to be advocating for increased government interference in the private sector, because a company doesn't "provide value". Who gets to decide which companies are "valuable" and which are "worthless" and to be broken up by government? Your line of thought is utterly terrifying to me, quite frankly.

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

The people, through, free and fair elections can fix market failures

But the people of the United States don't agree that any of these tech giants should be broken up.

Thats why we vote.

That remains to be seen, perhaps as a part of the 2020 election.

To be fair, governments are the ones that define and allow the existence of corporations. Corporations only exist because of "government interference".

It used to be a hard requirement that as part of the grant of corporate status, the corporation had to operate in way that served the greater societal good -- and those that didn't had their corporate charter removed. That's not done so much anymore, and in my opinion that's a bad thing.

So, this isn't increased government interference -- it's a government thing in the first place.

The history of corporations were one wher we started by evaluating if the completed work of the corporation would help society. The government would have to explicitly charter them as a single individual in the eyes of the law.

All other professions were treated as groups of individuals.

The idea that they are some inalienable right for people to receive limited liability and tax breaks is confusing, historically inaccurate, and largely made up in the last few decades.

You are more then welcome to act as an individual without incorporation, regardless of what value you provide. Receiving a charter from the government to act as a larger entity in society is exactly something we should be deciding about.

It's an incredibly arrogant position to believe that you can better evaluate how much value someone receives from some activity than they can.

She founded the CFPB, one of the most effective agencies in combating financial wrongdoing, and has a platform for dealing with banking and pharma. One headline does not a campaign platform make.

This might be worth mentioning: American political-sci textbooks point out that US Presidents have historically been more productive by focusing on fewer initiatives during their tenure in office. So, if Warren were to actually become President and focus on just big tech alone, it would likely be a lot more successful than trying to go after big-everything, or big-<a few other things>.

That said, this idea only applies to their time in office, not their campaign (I'm sure lots of voters want to see a crackdown on many big businesses other than tech). But it still influences things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com