Putting restrictions on big-tech is a stupid idea

[pentylspacer2600]

they meddle with elections and create personalized echo chambers im not for that man

 

[CamelCursive]

I don't care what you like because your kind will be erased off the internet soon and I can sleep soundly knowing that you were literally asking for it.

Actually, if anyone's "Kind" is going to be erased, it's probably going to be yours, while you sleep.

Honestly. I think it's going to come to that. The fact that even someone who's as moderate as I am thinks you're a fucking blight, that says something. In the realm of discourse, you're the village idiot that runs into a conversation making fart noises with your mouth.

Good riddance to your ilk.

 

[AF 802]

I like how kiwifarms is perpetually struggling with cognitive dissonance between their extreme randroid capitalist ideology and the fact that they're currently being driven into extinction by the free market.

Brenton Tarrant didn't do Kiwi Farms any favors when he brought the kiddies who think we're the second coming of Stormfront.

 

[mr.moon1488]

I strongly disagree, and I think allowing companies to start up in your country, but then not requiring them to show any loyalty to their home nations, is one of the biggest follies of the modern west. Big tech companies are the worst when it comes to this. They rake in billions from western citizens, but then declare themselves "multinationals," to deflect any responsibility they have to the societies that built them.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I would tend to agree if they were just interested in making money. Unfortunately they seem more interested in policing what I believe, what I am allowed to know, and who I am allowed to support in elections.

The problem with big tech is not simply an economic one, its social and political too and we are absolutely allowed to regulate that.

I like how kiwifarms is perpetually struggling with cognitive dissonance between their extreme randroid capitalist ideology and the fact that they're currently being driven into extinction by the free market.

Go back to reddit or else lurk more

 

[Y2K Baby]

Brenton Tarrant didn't do Kiwi Farms any favors when he brought the kiddies who think we're the second coming of Stormfront.

Except Stormfags are far from supporters of the free market?

 

[Y2K Baby]

• New industry.
• Massive monopoly forms.
• Create massive restrictions.
• Effectively kill the previous market cycle and freeze the power structure.
• The Rockerfellers, Morgans, Rothschilds, Du-Ponts will never not be rich again.

Why would it be any different.

If you rated this dumb or autistic, you are a libtard.

 

[Lemmingwise]

If you rated this dumb or autistic, you are a libtard.

It's interesting that upon finding out that your well thought ideas are perceived differently by others and your first conclusion is that they must both be dumb and politically aligned against you for them to come to that conclusion.

I have difficulty understanding what you are even trying to say.

Is your point that without restrictions on big tech, they would supplant the named families in wealth? Why would that be a bad or good thing?

-------

I think the discussion of regulation of big tech by governments is a moot one. On the one hand, they're deeply in bed with the US government in the first place, considering the link between darpa's lifelog and facebook and CIA investing in the google startup through In-Q-Tel. On the other hand, do you really trust governments more to have control over this?

I honestly don't see what could possibly be changed with government regulation.

There is something about technology that is just deeply boring to most people. It's why the engineer at your office has the ability to read your mail, why twitter reads your dms, and why @Null reads our conversations on this site, or would, if they weren't so goddamn boring. But nobody is interested in thinking about these things, not really.

Do you trust the US government, who manages to get their hands on Julian Assange for releasing truths about a political party to the public, oh sorry, I mean "hacking", to somehow guard your access to true sources of information? Not that I trust any of the tech giants either.... but how is any government's track record better?

 

[Y2K Baby]

It's interesting that upon finding out that your well thought ideas are perceived differently by others and your first conclusion is that they must both be dumb and politically aligned against you for them to come to that conclusion.

I have difficulty understanding what you are even trying to say.

Is your point that without restrictions on big tech, they would supplant the named families in wealth? Why would that be a bad or good thing?

-------

I think the discussion of regulation of big tech by governments is a moot one. On the one hand, they're deeply in bed with the US government in the first place, considering the link between darpa's lifelog and facebook and CIA investing in the google startup through In-Q-Tel. On the other hand, do you really trust governments more to have control over this?

I honestly don't see what could possibly be changed with government regulation.

There is something about technology that is just deeply boring to most people. It's why the engineer at your office has the ability to read your mail, why twitter reads your dms, and why @Null reads our conversations on this site, or would, if they weren't so goddamn boring. But nobody is interested in thinking about these things, not really.

Do you trust the US government, who manages to get their hands on Julian Assange for releasing truths about a political party to the public, oh sorry, I mean "hacking", to somehow guard your access to true sources of information? Not that I trust any of the tech giants either.... but how is any government's track record better?

Don't @ null, please.

 

[ICametoLurk]

I like how kiwifarms is perpetually struggling with cognitive dissonance between their extreme randroid capitalist ideology and the fact that they're currently being driven into extinction by the free market.

That's the central contradiction of our age, I think. It's a contradiction between the (subjective) interests of certain formations within the superstructure – angry white yokels of a conventionally Christian background – and the (objective) requirements of the base. Objectively, as far as the market is concerned, there's no reason why angry white yokels should be treated any differently from the Vietnamese lady in the nail salon. The tendency of the first world is re-proletarianization . The downturn in employment in manufacturing is partially due to automation, not just drops in output. Resources for use in renewed production, it follows that it will probably re-industrialize, as it (and all Western countries) are pursuing "isolationism." So right-wing "populism," such as it is, elects to threaten the economic base with the aim of shoring up their social / political position in their societies.

An analogy would be a contradiction between the goose and the golden eggs. The goose isn't laying as many golden eggs these days so the farmer opts to try and strangle the goose to death.

 

[CheezzyMach]

Honestly I'd rather the government take it's big stick and beat Big Pharma Raw & Bloody first.

 

[Fek]

I strongly disagree, and I think allowing companies to start up in your country, but then not requiring them to show any loyalty to their home nations, is one of the biggest follies of the modern west.

It certainly seems that way, yeah. From what I can tell, it's a fairly new issue in humanity's timeline thanks to the globe effectively shrinking as much as it has. Who needs a home allegiance when you can uproot a company and float away to greener pastures the moment you're called on your bullshit?

And that's not even mentioning the false social capital placed on the "oppression olympics" style pandering that big tech (in particular) is guilty of pushing.

Boils my blood, frankly.

Big tech companies are the worst when it comes to this. They rake in billions from western citizens, but then declare themselves "multinationals," to deflect any responsibility they have to the societies that built them.

This reminds me of a question I've mulled over for some time that is fairly fitting for this topic. Crude stream of thought ahead..fair warning:

Does free market capitalism need roots in some degree of nationalism in order to function in a net positive manner for the country responsible for their existence? I hate using "nationalism" to describe it, but it gets the point across (I hope).

Is forsaking your (let's say "Western" as it's responsible for big tech) culture, country, etc, for the sake of currency a bug or a feature? Or something else?

I haven't spent the time on it to have a real clear answer on my take, but maybe one of you fine upstanding folks have done so? Big tech is a great case study for it, I'd think.

 

[дядя Боря]

you'd be surprised that big-tech is driving this regulation in the first place.

More barriers to entry assures their monopoly and market dominance. Banking is another good example. Basically, the more regulation the less startups can compete.

 

[mr.moon1488]

It certainly seems that way, yeah. From what I can tell, it's a fairly new issue in humanity's timeline thanks to the globe effectively shrinking as much as it has. Who needs a home allegiance when you can uproot a company and float away to greener pastures the moment you're called on your bullshit?

And that's not even mentioning the false social capital placed on the "oppression olympics" style pandering that big tech (in particular) is guilty of pushing.

Boils my blood, frankly.



This reminds me of a question I've mulled over for some time that is fairly fitting for this topic. Crude stream of thought ahead..fair warning:

Does free market capitalism need roots in some degree of nationalism in order to function in a net positive manner for the country responsible for their existence? I hate using "nationalism" to describe it, but it gets the point across (I hope).

Is forsaking your (let's say "Western" as it's responsible for big tech) culture, country, etc, for the sake of currency a bug or a feature? Or something else?

I haven't spent the time on it to have a real clear answer on my take, but maybe one of you fine upstanding folks have done so? Big tech is a great case study for it, I'd think.

Personally, as I've gotten older, I've gone more from favoring "free market capitalism" to its older form which was mercantilism. I feel like governments should have a role in aiding their nation's companies in becoming dominate over other nations' companies, and I feel like the relationship should be reciprocal in that the nation's companies should strive to support their home country.

side note:
In a lot of ways China does this, and it's actually been effective enough to partially compensate the economic damage done by their idiotic communist policies.

 

[V0dka]

Restrictions are generally bad for business and don't tend to hurt the big guys in the first place, they reinforce monopolies because new smaller competitors can't afford to keep up with the restrictions while the bigger ones can.

Also you're fighting against the big guys who will be the ones actually making the decisions on what restrictions will pass and the ones that won't. That's the reality of it.
Leave them be, unrestrict the fuckers, they'll kill themselves eventually anyway.

If an antitrust lawsuit isn't brought against the major corps, then the corps will collectively enforce the monopoly, which will kill smaller businesses anyway. Google has already had lawsuits brought against it in Europe for favoring search results of it's partners over competitors.

Right now, Google and the rest in Silicon Valley have a literal stranglehold over what is virtually now a western public utility in Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter/Instagram. You aren't on these platforms? You and whatever business you have doesn't exist. There's no worry about these companies not making enough money, they are now a vital service. They are basically the world wide electric company, you want to do anything, if they don't like what you are doing, they can shut the power off.

Make a competitor? How? Who's going to advertise? Not Google's adsense, not Youtube, not Facebook. You bet your ass Twitter and the rest won't allow it to trend even if you try to do a viral marketing strategy.

 

[RetardedCat]

If an antitrust lawsuit isn't brought against the major corps, then the corps will collectively enforce the monopoly, which will kill smaller businesses anyway. Google has already had lawsuits brought against it in Europe for favoring search results of it's partners over competitors.

Right now, Google and the rest in Silicon Valley have a literal stranglehold over what is virtually now a western public utility in Google/Youtube, Facebook, Twitter/Instagram. You aren't on these platforms? You and whatever business you have doesn't exist. There's no worry about these companies not making enough money, they are now a vital service. They are basically the world wide electric company, you want to do anything, if they don't like what you are doing, they can shut the power off.

Make a competitor? How? Who's going to advertise? Not Google's adsense, not Youtube, not Facebook. You bet your ass Twitter and the rest won't allow it to trend even if you try to do a viral marketing strategy.

And regulations help how exactly? You try to regulate something like guns without the NRA getting its dirty hands in it or try regulating oil without the oil industry getting its dirty hands in it.
Regulations benefit the guys who have power anyway. Not touching anything benefits the guys who have the power too. What's the solution? You offer to make it a necessity, sure let's have that.

Making it a necessity doesn't change that Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and all the rest will still stay in power, you're not helping the little ones either.
Only change is that now they can't ban your ass. But where do we stop the necessity? Do we just say we apply the first amendment to the entire internet? Do we only apply it to CDA230 protected websites? Do we take away CDA230 if they don't want to comply?
Do we say that Youtube is a necessity or that Instagram is a necessity? Reddit? 4chan? How far do we go?

This shit's a fucking mess, I say don't touch it, let it implode. The users will decide what happens to the internet, not the corporations.

 

[V0dka]

This shit's a fucking mess, I say don't touch it, let it implode. The users will decide what happens to the internet, not the corporations.

People are idiots, they will largely do what they are told to do. And how will these companies implode? Through the free market? Buzzfeed and Vice Media should've probably died years ago, but we know that they receive cash injections to keep them afloat from wealthy benefactors. So we know the free market is already being subverted. Where's the free market gone?

 

[RetardedCat]

People are idiots, they will largely do what they are told to do. And how will these companies implode? Through the free market? Buzzfeed and Vice Media should've probably died years ago, but we know that they receive cash injections to keep them afloat from wealthy benefactors. So we know the free market is already being subverted. Where's the free market gone?

And what happens when the benefactors lose interest? It's gonna happen and you know it, eventually Buzzfeed and Vice will just go out of business for good and something else will get the cash injection.
That's how things work. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's part of the free market, the wealthy benefactors injecting cash into something that's bleeding cash is fully within their right. They're bound to make a mistake eventually.

I fail to see anything wrong with the market.

 

[V0dka]

And what happens when the benefactors lose interest? It's gonna happen and you know it, eventually Buzzfeed and Vice will just go out of business for good and something else will get the cash injection.
That's how things work. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's part of the free market, the wealthy benefactors injecting cash into something that's bleeding cash is fully within their right. They're bound to make a mistake eventually.

I fail to see anything wrong with the market.

I thought the idea of the Free Market is that competition decides the best product, through offering products to customers, and customers go with the best product. If corps are monopolizing to the point to stave out competition, and people are regularly just spending money to keep shit products afloat, doesn't that subvert the entire idea of the Free Market?

 

[RetardedCat]

I thought the idea of the Free Market is that competition decides the best product, through offering products to customers, and customers go with the best product. If corps are monopolizing to the point to stave out competition, and people are regularly just spending money to keep shit products afloat, doesn't that subvert the entire idea of the Free Market?

Putting money in an unsustainable product isn't viable on the long term, it'll collapse on its own, either the wealthy making the investment lose too much money or they lose interest. I see nothing wrong with it, it's not a sustainable system it'll sort itself out, it'll just take longer than without the cash injection.
If corporations are getting together and protecting their interests that's antitrust and that's clearly wrong. But until there's an antitrust issue raised properly against the big tech giants, we have to assume there's no antitrust (though I am certain they're just fucking sucking one another's dick under the table constantly but unlike modern retards, they keep it off the record).