Big Tech marshals a right-leaning army of allies for antitrust fight
axios.com
axios.com
The head of Twitter's Head of Site Integrity had this to say about red states:
“I’m just saying,” he tweeted in November 2016, “we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.”
It doesn't just lean left. It actively hates, demeans and silences the right.
[1] https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/737721?section=Hea...
It's not arbitrary for twitter to impose a higher level of scrutiny on @realDonaldTrump (~83M followers) than on accounts from non-famous people with a very small number of followers.
It actively hates, demeans and silences the right.
Trump: 83 million followers
McConnell: 7.1 million
Ted Cruz: 3.7 million
Ben Shapiro: 2.8 million
Tucker Carlson: 3.6 million
@GOP: 2.4 million
Yes, if Trump builds his own newsletter he is free to do what he wants. But when he's posting on someone else's platform, he's subject to their rules. Welcome to how the world works!
They really are breaking...section 230 protection
This off repeated talking point is wrong as a matter of law. There's a reason that all kinds of people have made this claim but never actually initiated any legal proceedings. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
You might want to read this explainer (from a conservative lawyer) explaining how this law actually works:
https://thedispatch.com/p/section-230-donald-trump-vs-twitte...
it would be a step too far for SMS providers to inject their opinion into my private text messages
Tweets aren't private communication. It's a broadcast medium subject to far different rules.
Freedom of speech is too damn important for a handful of power-hungry silicon valley Inquisitors to control.
Freedom of speech isn't under attack. Trump can say whatever he wants. He has one of the most powerful (figurative) megaphones in the world. A couple of small editorial comments on a single website, even a popular one, will not meaningfully reduce his (or anyone else's) ability to have their say.
You say that Twitter shouldn't be able to express its own editorial opinion. It's actually that point of view that attacks free speech.
E.g. look at /r/politics (or most popular default sub-reddits) on Reddit. It's ridiculously anti-conservative and anti-Trump, yet it's being portrayed as impartial and just "politics", when in fact it's a huge pro-left section of Reddit that is unfairly given front-page preference and backing. No right-leaning sub gets that, and in fact gets the opposite treatment such as /r/the_donald. One could say that the left-leaning individuals and groups are gaming the system and what we're seeing is a consequence of that.
"It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees"
Google does not sell personal info to anyone.
“Status quo elites marshal an army from the faction defined by defending the power of status quo elites for fight that might threaten their power” has to be, at least very nearly, the most dog-bites-purpose-built-dog-chew-toy story in the history of news.
The unusual aspect of this is that the antitrust threat comes from the far right largely as retaliation for platforms being insufficiently accommodating to the far right, not that the defenders are the classic center-right-to-solid-right defenders of entrenched corporate power.
It's like getting pulled over in a small town -- you pay a lot into the local economy to make the ticket disappear.
> Biden slammed big tech companies in a January interview with the New York Times, saying he had “never been a fan of Facebook” and arguing that online platforms should not be allowed immunity for content posted by users.
> Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition.
> Sanders, who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the breakup of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon.
Make no mistake, this isn't the Clintons' party anymore (or it won't be for much longer). The young blood hates business and corporations and is pulling the whole party in that direction.
Sanders hasn't gotten anything meaningful done as a legislator for pretty much his whole career and Biden at this point will say anything that his handlers put in front of him.
As for your comment about it being in their narrative, don't forget: https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close...
The question is: how much power do you think Jamie Dimon/Mike Bloomberg Democrats have in the party going forward? Are you going to bet your share price on it?
It's unlikely that his handlers share the political opinions of his base, which was my point. It's also not where they're spending their campaign dollars. They assume his base is on lock (and judging from my social media filter-bubble, which is 90% middle-aged & older black and hispanic male voters, I can assure you it's not). He's a say one thing and do another kind of guy.
As for the power of Mike Bloomberg Democrats, well...politics runs on money.
True but, (anecdotally) a growing number of my center and right-leaning acquaintances are warming to the idea of breaking up and/or (at least partly) nationalizing parts of the economy - particularly big tech - because we appear to be in a cold - potentially hot - war with China.
imo this idea is going to be coming from the right more frequently in the near future.
I never go into another country thinking "wait did you guys just elect extremists because if so that makes me not want to do business here" so why would I treat America differently?
When people use the term "virtue signaling" as a criticism of an organization's actions, it is based on the observation that the same organizations doing it are involved in plenty of other countries and didn't consider the political outcomes at all, only the convenience of what is possible in that country. Ireland, Cayman Islands, Netherlands are part of the standard cocktail, and when the head of state is rolling out a red carpet, I do not care how they got there.
Would it be possible to change the anti-trust laws so that companies can not merge or be acquired if the sum of their assets and revenue exceeds a set dollar figure adjusted for inflation?
If A(assets + revenue) + B(assets + revenue) >= $, then not allowed to merge.
This will promote competition from upstarts and increase the efficiency of these companies by preventing them from gobbling up every new market.
There are a lot of Googlers on HN who blindly follow Google, and more people who worship the ground Google walks on; i'll be curious to see what the discussion is like when Google's evil is laid out for the world to see. Lot of the stuff Google (and other companies like Facebook) is indefensible when you look at it from an anti-trust point of view. Stuff like this article, where Google is working with people who are against what a lot of Googler's stand for will be an interesting show.
Like what? I can only remember what seemed like some bad vr acquisitions and companies that were basically already Google Cloud products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
Prior to that, Google acquired Dejavue, Outride, Pyra Labs, Neotonic Software, Applied Semantics, Kaltix, Sprinks, Genius Labs, Ignite Logic, Picasa, ZipDash, Where2, Keyhole, Urchin Software Corporation, Dodgeball, Akwan Information Technologies, Reqwireless, Android, Skia, Phatbits, allPAY, bruNET, dMarc Broadcasting, Measure Map, Upstartle, @Last Software, Orion, 2Web Technologies, Neven Vision Germany, YouTube, JotSpot, Endoxon, Adscape, Trendalyzer, Crusix, Tonic Systems, Marratech, DoubleClick, GreenBorder, Panoramio, FeedBurner, PeakStream, Zenter, GrandCentral, ImageAmerica, Postini, Zingku, Jaiku, Omnisio, TNC, On2, reCAPTCHA, AdMob, Gizmo5, Teracent, AppJet, Aardvark, reMail, Picnik, DocVerse, Episodic, Plink, Agnilux, LabPixies, BumpTop, Global IP Solutions, Simplify Media, Ruba.com, Invite Media, Metaweb, Zetawire, Instantiations, Slide.com, Jambool, Like.com, Angstro, SocialDeck, Quiksee, Plannr, BlindType, Phonetic Arts, Widevine Technologies, eBook Technologies, SayNow, Zynamics, BeatThatQuote.com, Next New Networks, Green Parrot Pictures, PushLife, ITA Software, TalkBin, Sparkbuy, PostRank, Admeld, SageTV, Punchd, Fridge, PittPatt, Dealmap, Motorola Mobility, Zave Networks, Zagat, DailyDeal, SocialGrapple, Apture, Katango, RightsFlow, Clever Sense, Milk, TxVia, Meebo, Quickoffice, Sparrow, WIMM Labs, Wildfire Interactive, VirusTotal.com, Nik Software, Viewdle, Incentive Targeting, BufferBox, Channel Intelligence, DNNresearch, Talaria Technologies, Behavio, Wavii, Makani Power, Waze, Bump, Flutter, FlexyCore, Schaft, Industrial Perception, Redwood Robotics, Meka Robotics, Holomni, Bot & Dolly, Autofuss, Bitspin, Nest Labs, Impermium, DeepMind Technologies, SlickLogin, spider.io, GreenThrottle, Titan Aerospace, Rangespan, Adometry, Appetas, Stackdriver, MyEnergy, Quest Visual, Divide, Skybox Imaging, mDialog, Alpental Technologies, Dropcam, Appurify, Songza, drawElements, Emu, Director, Jetpac, Gecko Design, Zync Render, Lift Labs, Polar, Firebase, Dark Blue Labs & Vision Factory, Revolv, RelativeWave, and Vidmaker.
Google has had a vertical monopoly on search/advertising for at least 15 years now and nobody's (nobody that matters, anyway) said a peep about it really.
On the advertising front, until recently, Facebook was the favorite for many companies when it came to advertising due to the better targeting.
Between Android, Chrome, Google Search and AdWords, 99% and some nines of all web browsing globally is done with a Google product sitting in the middle.
Even if you're using ddg, most pages you browse will have gclids somewhere.
Which is weird because internally people are pretty damn skeptical. If anything is found I'm all for doing what is determined "correct". I would worry that people with little understanding would make that call but time will tell.
On the flipside of the quoted statement, I will say that Googlers have a far better understanding about what is collected/done (in other instance IE privacy) that your random at HN so are more likely to not be so dismissive/fear mongering. When you've seen the stomach of the best it's far less scary.
Default opinions are my own because I'm paranoid.
I've heard variations on this theme from a lot of Googlers, and it always seems like "just trust us!" but then they can't or won't publicly disclose any reasons why we should.
Do you remember this pledge? http://neveragain.tech/
> We refuse to build a database of people based on their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs. We refuse to facilitate mass deportations of people the government believes to be undesirable.
A bunch of Googlers signed that, but I'd wager Google has _already_ built that database. Maybe not explicitly, but I bet Google has a decent estimate of their users' religious beliefs, race, immigration status, etc. Those are valuable categories for marketers to target!
What is this for you? I ask because I seem to get a lot of different answers to this question.
Apple is the only company I can see that won't be hit.
This is kind of astonishing logic. The obvious case against Apple is that they control totally the market for iOS apps, but even if you take the Apple supporter's argument that you should use the overall app market (i.e. including Android apps), even though they can't run on the same devices, Apple would still have more of the overall phone app market than Amazon has of the online retail market. And yet Amazon is a problematic monopoly and Apple isn't?
Type this into Google:
site:amazon.com google nest mini
The results are basically the same as you're describing. Maybe Amazon just doesn't sell it?
Neo conservatives and neoliberals (the UK Guardian is a good example of globalist neo liberal ideas) are largely the same thing with some nuances. Just as there are various flavors of 'left' this is also true of the 'right'.
Neoliberalism is a right wing ideology, not a left wing one.
""Neoliberalism" is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers" and reducing state influence in the economy, especially through privatization and austerity."[1]
This is pretty much the opposite from what those on the left aim for.
Those on the left want nationalization, not privitazation, regulation of capital markets, not deregulation, price controls, not their elimination, and more state influence in the economy, not less.
So yeah, now we have flavors of neoliberalism.
I think these are interesting questions to ask now as the left, broadly speaking, doesn't have a strong political identity, with many progressives further left of the democratic party and other disaffected voters leaning libertarian.
To the extent that Clinton embraced neoliberal policies, he would be considered to be pursuing a right-wing economic agenda.