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.