U.S. Politics

[insanity]

https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-americans-worry-about-kids-children-climate-change-poll-2019-3?utm_source=reddit.com

Fwiw

[delavan]

I'm not sure how that's selfless.  You're bringing a child into this world who's father doesnt want him/her.  Selfless for the mother maybe, but it's irresponsible and definitely not selfless to the kid.

You dont need to change your mind about having kids because of the environment, but it's good to at the very least think about the environment you'll kids will grow up in when deciding on whether you want to have kids.

I've no problem with the environmentally conscious mindset.  As for selfless, I meant it in the sacrifice sense of the word - dad does it for mom and makes the best of it (sort of like on the flip side how parents stay together for the sake of the kid).  That said, the U.S. birthrates are hitting record level lows: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women



 

[AlioTheFool]

I've mostly kept away from political chat lately, but Elizabeth Warren needs to freak right off.

She wants to "break up" Amazon, Google, and Facebook and regulate them like utilities. She's suggesting that Google's search should be a separate company from its ad business. Google's ad business is how Alphabet stays in business and provides all the "free" services everyone enjoys like search, GMail, and Android. She also wants to prevent Amazon from selling its own "Basics" products on its own site, believing that it will help smaller vendors compete. I don't even know what she wants to do with Facebook.

[Johnny English]

I've mostly kept away from political chat lately, but Elizabeth Warren needs to freak right off.

She wants to "break up" Amazon, Google, and Facebook and regulate them like utilities. She's suggesting that Google's search should be a separate company from its ad business. Google's ad business is how Alphabet stays in business and provides all the "free" services everyone enjoys like search, GMail, and Android. She also wants to prevent Amazon from selling its own "Basics" products on its own site, believing that it will help smaller vendors compete. I don't even know what she wants to do with Facebook.

There has long been an argument, and quite a compelling one, that a legislation-backed break up of the big four is in everyone's best interest. There was a lengthy piece about it a few months back in a magazine, possibly the Economist, which made a very good case for it. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.

Edit: found it.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a15895746/bust-big-tech-silicon-valley/

Bear in mind there's loads of precedent for this - the US government has been routinely busting up Ma Bell for decades, and for good reason.

[AlioTheFool]

There has long been an argument, and quite a compelling one, that a legislation-backed break up of the big four is in everyone's best interest. There was a lengthy piece about it a few months back in a magazine, possibly the Economist, which made a very good case for it. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.

Edit: found it.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a15895746/bust-big-tech-silicon-valley/

Bear in mind there's loads of precedent for this - the US government has been routinely busting up Ma Bell for decades, and for good reason.

The irony of multiple Amazon ads as I scrolled through that article...

I can understand fighting off monopoly power (and in fairness, I can understand the argument against Amazon Basics--though I disagree with Warren's stance) but if you force Google to separate its ad piece from the rest of the company, Alphabet stops being a profitable company--unless they start charging for all the individual services we currently enjoy for free.

Does something need to be done about megacorps? Hell yeah. This is the science-fiction fear of decades past where just a handful of companies rule the entire planet. But you can't just run around screaming "Break them up!" like that will suddenly make everyone's lives better.

I'm okay with regulation, I am a Democrat after all, if it's in terms of oversight. But I'm not in favor of cutting these companies into smaller parts. For example, I'd drop my Prime membership if I stopped getting both free shipping and Prime Video with one fee. There's no chance I'd continue using GMail if I suddenly had to pay a subscription fee for it.

[insanity]

I've mostly kept away from political chat lately, but Elizabeth Warren needs to freak right off.

She wants to "break up" Amazon, Google, and Facebook and regulate them like utilities. She's suggesting that Google's search should be a separate company from its ad business. Google's ad business is how Alphabet stays in business and provides all the "free" services everyone enjoys like search, GMail, and Android. She also wants to prevent Amazon from selling its own "Basics" products on its own site, believing that it will help smaller vendors compete. I don't even know what she wants to do with Facebook.

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with how she's saying it should be done, but it needs to be.

[insanity]

Policy aside, I like the way she Politic

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1104069510238269440

[Johnny English]

The irony of multiple Amazon ads as I scrolled through that article...

I can understand fighting off monopoly power (and in fairness, I can understand the argument against Amazon Basics--though I disagree with Warren's stance) but if you force Google to separate its ad piece from the rest of the company, Alphabet stops being a profitable company--unless they start charging for all the individual services we currently enjoy for free.

Does something need to be done about megacorps? Hell yeah. This is the science-fiction fear of decades past where just a handful of companies rule the entire planet. But you can't just run around screaming "Break them up!" like that will suddenly make everyone's lives better.

I'm okay with regulation, I am a Democrat after all, if it's in terms of oversight. But I'm not in favor of cutting these companies into smaller parts. For example, I'd drop my Prime membership if I stopped getting both free shipping and Prime Video with one fee. There's no chance I'd continue using GMail if I suddenly had to pay a subscription fee for it.

OK, but that's not your problem or Warren's or anyone else's other than Alphabet's to solve, and in fact isn't that pretty much the point? I don't know if you read the article (it's long but it's worth it), but the whole point of breaking them up isn't to keep them profitable, it's to ensure that competition can thrive because right now those four have the corporate might to crush anyone who might wish to try.

The fact that you say "there's no chance I'd continue using GMail if I suddenly had to pay a subscription fee for it" is exactly why it should be broken up. You're looking at it as what you'd lose if this happened, not what you'd gain. Right now you get what the big four are willing to allow you to have, not what you've chosen in the marketplace because there currently is no marketplace.

[insanity]

OK, but that's not your problem or Warren's or anyone else's other than Alphabet's to solve, and in fact isn't that pretty much the point? I don't know if you read the article (it's long but it's worth it), but the whole point of breaking them up isn't to keep them profitable, it's to ensure that competition can thrive because right now those four have the corporate might to crush anyone who might wish to try.

The fact that you say "there's no chance I'd continue using GMail if I suddenly had to pay a subscription fee for it" is exactly why it should be broken up. You're looking at it as what you'd lose if this happened, not what you'd gain. Right now you get what the big four are willing to allow you to have, not what you've chosen in the marketplace because there currently is no marketplace.

Wow, great post.  Never thought about it that way.

[AlioTheFool]

OK, but that's not your problem or Warren's or anyone else's other than Alphabet's to solve, and in fact isn't that pretty much the point? I don't know if you read the article (it's long but it's worth it), but the whole point of breaking them up isn't to keep them profitable, it's to ensure that competition can thrive because right now those four have the corporate might to crush anyone who might wish to try.

The fact that you say "there's no chance I'd continue using GMail if I suddenly had to pay a subscription fee for it" is exactly why it should be broken up. You're looking at it as what you'd lose if this happened, not what you'd gain. Right now you get what the big four are willing to allow you to have, not what you've chosen in the marketplace because there currently is no marketplace.

We strongly disagree here.

It's not Alphabet's problem to solve to find a new way to be profitable just because some politician has decided they're the big bad wolf. Google's entire business model, since day 1, has been to use the data they collect from any of their offerings to serve advertising across the internet.

The idea that I'd gain anything by breaking them up is ridiculous. I have Microsoft Office through work, so why would I then pay for Sheets? I have functioning email addresses with AOL, Yahoo, and Outlook.com, so why would I pay for GMail? I have loads of data on USB thumb drives and an MS OneDrive account, so why would I pay for Drive?

Should there be some punitive action against the Big 4? Sure, I can get on board with that. Microsoft was once punished by the DOJ for anti-competitive practices, and the Big 4 is certainly due for some hand-spanking. But breaking them up? Absolutely not.

And yes, I did read that entire article, long-winded as it was. I had some issues with some of the things he wrote, but I can't recall what they were anymore. Suffice to say, I disagree with him.

[Johnny English]

The idea that I'd gain anything by breaking them up is ridiculous. I have Microsoft Office through work, so why would I then pay for Sheets? I have functioning email addresses with AOL, Yahoo, and Outlook.com, so why would I pay for GMail? I have loads of data on USB thumb drives and an MS OneDrive account, so why would I pay for Drive?

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it ridiculous. No one is saying that Gmail or anything else would suddenly become chargeable.

The big four are killing innovation. If you can't see that then you understand coding more than you understand the industry itself.

[AlioTheFool]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it ridiculous. No one is saying that Gmail or anything else would suddenly become chargeable.

The big four are killing innovation. If you can't see that then you understand coding more than you understand the industry itself.

Save your condescending bullshit.

I enjoy things provided by 2 of the Big 4 right now. Things like GMail, or Prime shipping plus video. What would I get from their breakup? Apart from some theoretical "competition breeds innovation" because there already is competition for all 4 of them for every service they provide.

What motivation does Alphabet have to let people use GMail for free if the product is separated from its advertising business? What does it provide me to split Prime shipping from Prime video, other than me paying for two services instead of one?

I granted things like the example of Amazon Basics being anti-competitive as a reasonable target to go after. Again, I'm okay with the idea of some regulation/oversight. But the idea of breaking these companies up is ridiculous and hurts me, the consumer, more than some perceived lack of competition.

[Johnny English]

Save your condescending bullshit.

I enjoy things provided by 2 of the Big 4 right now. Things like GMail, or Prime shipping plus video. What would I get from their breakup? Apart from some theoretical "competition breeds innovation" because there already is competition for all 4 of them for every service they provide.

What motivation does Alphabet have to let people use GMail for free if the product is separated from its advertising business? What does it provide me to split Prime shipping from Prime video, other than me paying for two services instead of one?

I granted things like the example of Amazon Basics being anti-competitive as a reasonable target to go after. Again, I'm okay with the idea of some regulation/oversight. But the idea of breaking these companies up is ridiculous and hurts me, the consumer, more than some perceived lack of competition.

So you agree that breaking up the big four does make sense, but only as long as it doesn't impact the services that you receive. Which is great, I agree. No one wants to regress, but that's the point. We're only progressing at the speed they allow us to right now.

Look at telecom as a direct analog to this situation, because it is. What's in it for a major player to innovate rather than sweat existing assets if they don't have a competitive driver to do so? If you've got no choice but to buy from me, why am I remotely interested in giving you anything that costs me more money to deliver? We broke up Bell and BT and large telcos around the world for exactly this reason.

The separation of Gmail and Alphabet Advertising doesn't automatically make Gmail a chargeable service, BTW. There's nothing stopping Alphabet paying Gmail for the right to use their platform to sell advertising space, just like ad agencies pay Maiden for the right to put billboards up on their real estate. There's also nothing in that situation stopping someone coming along and giving Gmail a better offer, or another mail platform giving Alphabet better pricing. None of that culture exists right now, and Google isn't even the worst culprit. Facebook are the very first in my crosshairs when I'm emperor of the world.

Oversized companies dominating large markets have resulted in competition and improved customer product and service delivery exactly zero times in the history of commerce. There's no logical argument to your position.

[IATA]

look at the telco nightmare here in canada. we pay the most money in the world for the lowest levels of service because there are 2 big companies here, and they hold each others hands while they end us over and reem us.

the crtc is the slowest moving organization on earth, and have little desire to fix the problem. they forced the telcos to rent out bandwidth/line space to smaller telcos(like the one i work for), on lines the public paid for.

rogers dosent like this, so they are actually investing their own money into upgrading their own infrastructure that they can then keep private for their own cx. good for them, still terrible for consumers.

[AlioTheFool]

So you agree that breaking up the big four does make sense, but only as long as it doesn't impact the services that you receive. Which is great, I agree. No one wants to regress, but that's the point. We're only progressing at the speed they allow us to right now.

Look at telecom as a direct analog to this situation, because it is. What's in it for a major player to innovate rather than sweat existing assets if they don't have a competitive driver to do so? If you've got no choice but to buy from me, why am I remotely interested in giving you anything that costs me more money to deliver? We broke up Bell and BT and large telcos around the world for exactly this reason.

The separation of Gmail and Alphabet Advertising doesn't automatically make Gmail a chargeable service, BTW. There's nothing stopping Alphabet paying Gmail for the right to use their platform to sell advertising space, just like ad agencies pay Maiden for the right to put billboards up on their real estate. There's also nothing in that situation stopping someone coming along and giving Gmail a better offer, or another mail platform giving Alphabet better pricing. None of that culture exists right now, and Google isn't even the worst culprit. Facebook are the very first in my crosshairs when I'm emperor of the world.

Oversized companies dominating large markets have resulted in competition and improved customer product and service delivery exactly zero times in the history of commerce. There's no logical argument to your position.

Telecoms provide a singular service or at least did when they were broken up. And they don't provide too many different services today. It's phone calls and data delivery.

Amazon provides disparate services for my Prime membership. I get free shipping, access to a growing catalog of movies and TV, free ebooks, and other things I haven't yet used, such as Whole Foods discounts. Alphabet provides me free email, search, office-competitive tools, cloud storage and the operating system on my mobile devices.

I don't use Apple products, and other than FB being a den of dishonesty and a forum for the lowest common denominator of society, I don't care about them.

Your argument is disputed by the actual real-world actions of the above companies. Google has developed many products despite market dominance. Amazon continues to introduce new services. Apple has direct competition on both the PC side and the mobile side. Facebook really just acquires companies, but whatever.

I understand your POV, but I disagree with it. The place I'd act on these companies is in forcing them to pay their fair share of taxes. Some oversight would be fair as well. Again, I can understand targeting something like Amazon Basics for selling competing products at cut-rate prices. That's using monopolistic power for competitive advantage. But even then, it doesn't negatively affect me as a consumer, whereas the problem with monopolies is supposed to be a negative effect on the consumer. They're controlling prices down not up. It may hurt other businesses trying to sell competing products, but that's not my problem.