Elizabeth Warren proposes breaking up Amazon, Google, and Facebook

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more and that offer to the public an online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as "platform utilities."
These companies would be prohibited from owning both the platform utility and any participants on that platform. Platform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users. Platform utilities would not be allowed to transfer or share data with third parties.
For smaller companies (those with annual global revenue of between $90 million and $25 billion), their platform utilities would be required to meet the same standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users, but would not be required to structurally separate from any participant on the platform.
To enforce these new requirements, federal regulators, State Attorneys General, or injured private parties would have the right to sue a platform utility to enjoin any conduct that violates these requirements, to disgorge any ill-gotten gains, and to be paid for losses and damages. A company found to violate these requirements would also have to pay a fine of 5 percent of annual revenue.
This part of Warren's plan would require Amazon Basics—a line of products made by Amazon—to be separated from the Amazon Marketplace. Google's ad exchange and Google Search would also have to be split apart, with Google's search business being spun off from the company. Since Warren said this would be accomplished with legislation, it would require cooperation from Congress.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...poses-breaking-up-amazon-google-and-facebook/

I find it odd that some of her first big shots would be fired at companies like Amazon and Google. Not only does it bypass more (IMO) appropriate targets like ISPs but this seems like a great way to alienate a rather large Tech\Silicon Valley voter and donor base.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,173
126
The Dems really need a unified message and policies (which I don't think this particular one is) that will pass the muster with the majority of Americans to win back the presidency. While this kind of debate is good for democracy, the other side is not playing by the same rules.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,606
4,699
136
The Dems really need a unified message and policies (which I don't think this particular one is) that will pass the muster with the majority of Americans to win back the presidency. While this kind of debate is good for democracy, the other side is not playing by the same rules.


I think whichever candidate wins the party endorsement gets to decide that, eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jameny5

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,173
126
I think whichever candidate wins the party endorsement gets to decide that, eh?
Fair enough but if the policies prove unpalatable to moderates it's going to be a tough slog for the presidency. I think policies like medicare for all, the majority can get behind, but something like this IMO is on the borderline of what may be acceptable to the voting public.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
I honestly don't quite fathom what it is about tech companies that she seems to think are crucial issues. They aren't. She is fucking retarded.

Most of these such as social media companies are ones that were made in the last 10 years. If you think that can't quickly change in 10 years - then you're simply too fucking stupid to understand fads.

If she had half a brain she would mention REAL oligopoly issues - such as Cable companies and airlines. But of course, she is simply too stupid.
 

Bardock

Senior member
Mar 12, 2014
346
39
91
Amazon gobbled up over 51% of usa retail share, its a monopoly

they all are

giphy.gif
 

DisarmedDespot

Senior member
Jun 2, 2016
591
592
136
The left's honeymoon with Silicon Valley is over. It really shouldn't be surprising, what with Facebook unable to stop the spread of garbage like anti-vaccine propaganda, Amazon's stupid 'give the biggest company free money' HQ contest and companies like Google bending over backwards to satisfy China's censorship demands. Expect the other Dems to roll out proposals in the same genre. Unless the right somehow pivots to be the tech companies' protector, some might actually get passed.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,002
136
I am inherently opposed to harming Amazon.

Mostly on account of the AWS side of it. It has revolutionized server and service hosting over the internet. And a lot of business depends on it remaining as is.

For the retail side of Amazon, there may be a good point on how they own so much and have such great supply and delivery side deals that it is impossible to provide an alternative service. But I'd need to see the need in breaking that up. A logical reason for why this is a bad monopoly. How it harms people. And a solid plan for how a breakout would be done without destroying the company or touching its other business. Without harming people who depend on its wide variety of services.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Makes sense that Warren, who partially made her name as a consumer right’s advocate, would differentiate herself by targeting tech monopolies. Given that Facebook and Twitter seem incapable of policing themselves, and after the Amazon HQ debacle, its time for some oversight.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
It really shouldn't be surprising, what with Facebook unable to stop the spread of garbage like anti-vaccine propaganda, Amazon's stupid 'give the biggest company free money' HQ contest and companies like Google bending over backwards to satisfy China's censorship demands.


I find it odd you fault one company for not doing enough censorship and then fault a different company because they are engaging in censorship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bardock
Mar 11, 2004
23,261
5,709
146

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...poses-breaking-up-amazon-google-and-facebook/

I find it odd that some of her first big shots would be fired at companies like Amazon and Google. Not only does it bypass more (IMO) appropriate targets like ISPs but this seems like a great way to alienate a rather large Tech\Silicon Valley voter and donor base.

I agree, but I think she's actually trying to approach this from a more even keeled direction (by putting forth the stipulations for her targeting those companies; basically she's saying that due to their revenue, they have outsized ability to throw their weight around in the market in non-competitive ways, which is true but its also more nuanced than that). In a way, her specifically targeting the companies she is I think is a misstep, and I think the situations she's choosing might not actually be that problematic. Also her talking of divesting Google Search from the ad revenue, well that would destroy Google as the ad revenue is what is funding all the other things, and I think that will actually lead to things being worse in that, if Search becomes dependent on ad revenue to exist (because that's the only way its going to be able to make money, people are just not going to pay for something like that directly), then its just going to turn into a consummately ad infested experience where all the prominent results are paid for.

Er, I want to clarify that, as arguably that's already the situation. What I mean is that, divesting the ad part from the search, means that Search will be desperate for money (or will go under if it can't get enough money), such that it will become even more focused on promoting paid for results. And most likely we'll end up with worse situation, since its not like the legit alternatives have been much better (Verizon owns Yahoo, Microsoft, and then it would probably help Facebook become even more of a gatekeeper for people's access to the internet).

So, I feel like she either needed to be more generic (just hammer home the $25billion + platform control angle, and say that it would apply to all that fall in, but not delve into specific companies) or she should have gone with a plan that more people can easily see is an issue (like ISPs).

I'm mixed, I agree with the general sentiment about looking to better regulate things to foster competitive markets (and there's plenty of situations that warrant some scrutiny), but there's a variety of factors that come into play and make it difficult to apply things quite so simply. And I feel like there's much more apt situations that need attention. Hell, Uber alone provides a litany of reasons to delve into them much more than these other companies.

I do think though, and I wouldn't be completely opposed to some regulation (especially related to privacy), that targets both ISPs and sites that mandate accounts (so yes social media sites, but also online retailers or wallets like Paypal). Something with teeth, as we've kept having instances of the government making a fuss only for the assholes to still be found to be doing nefarious shit (ISPs kept allowing different means of tracking).

The left's honeymoon with Silicon Valley is over. It really shouldn't be surprising, what with Facebook unable to stop the spread of garbage like anti-vaccine propaganda, Amazon's stupid 'give the biggest company free money' HQ contest and companies like Google bending over backwards to satisfy China's censorship demands. Expect the other Dems to roll out proposals in the same genre. Unless the right somehow pivots to be the tech companies' protector, some might actually get passed.

The thing is, it was always a bit iffy. Don't forget Clinton's DOJ went after Microsoft. And I believe they looked into some tech companies under Obama (I think Google got some fines, Facebook too maybe, obviously not enough to stop their crappy behavior; but then we also found out how the MPAA had written things that politicians used to try and go after Google over Search, so there's definitely some shady motivations behind some of this stuff). Honestly, I think this is actually one of the legit "both sides" where they both have mixed feelings about a lot of these companies, but because of a mixture of lobbying and general popularity of those companies (and the cost of building serious cases) they aren't keen on really doing much more than blustering in some hearings.

I think, if properly framed and properly considered, this is stuff that would appeal to most people (well maybe not executives at those companies, and probably some of workers there as well).

But I also think there could be distinctly different motivations behind this stuff, as we've seen, so I'm a bit specious that everything is on the up and up.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...y-congress-pressures-states-to-attack-google/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...acks-off-google-investigation-pushed-by-mpaa/

Bullshit.

Online sales account for about 10% of retail sales in the US and Amazon has about 4% of all retail sales (both on and off line). It *is* at about 50% of all online retail sales though.

the numbers are from various sources all easily googled

https://www.google.com/search?q=per...Z4KHeAqA50QBQgpKAA&biw=1343&bih=1030&dpr=1.15

Thanks for that, I would've guessed Amazon much differently. I also would've expected online to be the majority of modern sales (but perhaps that includes stuff like car sales and other things that haven't really gone online in a big way yet?) at this point, or close to 50/50. I know people still largely buy groceries at brick and mortar. But still was fairly surprising.
 
Last edited:

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
Fair enough but if the policies prove unpalatable to moderates it's going to be a tough slog for the presidency. I think policies like medicare for all, the majority can get behind, but something like this IMO is on the borderline of what may be acceptable to the voting public.

I completely agree. The last election was close enough without picking fights with groups that have traditionally supported the Democrats. Not only do I think some of her stances are questionable (like darkswordsman17 mentioned regarding Google search and Ads) but there are cases which are, at a minimum, just as problematic if not significantly more so and are far less controversial.

For example if she is talking about improving innovation, releasing people from the stranglehold of the few, unimpressive broadband providers would be a much better start. AND you'll get way more voter support. I mean when was the last time anyone said they liked their ISP?
 

jameny5

Senior member
Aug 7, 2018
300
77
101
The Dems really need a unified message and policies (which I don't think this particular one is) that will pass the muster with the majority of Americans to win back the presidency. While this kind of debate is good for democracy, the other side is not playing by the same rules.
I don't think she stated this as message for the Presidency or her candidacy. If so - please quote her words.I agree to a great extent that those companies have a lot of control over our personal information. Google is number one for that. Look at all their products like their app family and all the smaller businesses they own. If you have a Google account, open it, look at Google Dashboard - You or any Congressional person will be breathless to see what is in that Dashboard. Tell me something - why do I have to go on my browser to delete my search and browser history then do it again on a totally different website in Google? They have your phone contacts stored, search and browser history, video watch history and library, emails, photos. That's just to start - the list goes on and on with all their capabilities. Did you know Google stores your every day activity - like walking and places you have visited then notifies you if want to rate your visit in real time? And they notify you not too long after the visit. Let's not get started with FACEBOOK, Amazon or Apple. I haven't really touched on all of Google's capabilities. The other three are probably worse. See FACEBOOK uses ADS to make money off their subscribers worldwide in malicious ways. Google makes it's money by letting customers buy and USE their FREE products. The more you use their products the more lucrative and profitable it is to Google. I am going to say this - I am a Warren fan on some issues. She is spot on and tells it like it is. I have been ranting and raving about breaking up FACEBOOK since the Cambridge Analytica scandal up until now - calling for the break up of these four companies. They have TOO much control of our information. There are people out there that say it is not a good idea because then we would have to pay for all these products. I mean what's the alternative? Let them do what they want with our info? Pay for it? Or reign them in? How many social media companies do we need handling our information? There are too many as is - Tik Tok, Tumblr, Google+, FACEBOOK, Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Pinterest and whole host of others. I would not base my vote for her because of her call to break up of these companies. She does go a bit far keeping her eyes on Wall Street and all the crap it pulls. It's not a bad idea in my opinion. Someone has to keep an eye on the big bad wolf!
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,173
126
I don't think she stated this as message for the Presidency or her candidacy. If so - please quote her words.
It says in the article "she would pursue the plan if she wins the presidency", so it sounds like this will be one of her policies. She laid out the plan and while she didn't say explicitly "this is one of my policies", can you read it any other way?
 

jameny5

Senior member
Aug 7, 2018
300
77
101
It says in the article "she would pursue the plan if she wins the presidency", so it sounds like this will be one of her policies. She laid out the plan and while she didn't say explicitly "this is one of my policies", can you read it any other way?
I think I was trying to say it was not her sole reason for running for President. Her call for this to happen to these four companies could have been born out of Facebook's numerous scandals in 2018. (Note: I am speculating) It certainly is plausible. I am sure she would need Congressional action and legislation to do this. Just like too big to fail. Nothing came out of that to stop the banks from getting bigger. Facebook has been caught compromising our information. Something has to be done about it. One of those four companies needs to be Made an example of... Hell the big four banks got bigger after Bush's financial meltdown. We don't want to revisit that...
 

jameny5

Senior member
Aug 7, 2018
300
77
101
I would reign in the most vulnerable companies. Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon are the main ones. I'm sure there are others. They are the ones at the top of the list!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bardock