Break up the tech giants?

Facebook, Google, Twitter and Amazon get to lecture you on SJW values and even act accordingly. Apple meanwhile has been oddly quiet and under the radar these last few years. You'd expect Apple to be the loudest and proudest tranny rights activist.

The simple reason is because Facebook and the gang are monopolies, while Apple is in a highly competitive market fighting for market share.

Should they be split up? How could you even do that? This is not like Standard Oil with tangible assets. This is mostly IP and human capital. Also, congress has no idea what the fuck is going inside tech firms.
What are Jow Forums's thoughts on this?

Attached: 1 g_cUDQ66c2CP4susM-lUJg.png (1024x512, 60K)

Other urls found in this thread:

recode.net/2018/2/1/16961598/amazon-jeff-bezos-record-profit-11-quarter-q4-2017-earnings
nytimes.com/2018/04/26/technology/amazon-prime-profit.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Wah a corporation banned me for spamming nigger at everyone
>better split them up!!!!!!!
#FREEMARKETCAPITALISM!

implying lolberts are the people who care
free market is a meme

Apple is a hardware maker.

Are you implying that the idea of Government intervention having negative consequences on the economy, isn't the general consensus for Jow Forumstards?

It seems the louder they are, the more monopolistic.
Therefore Amazon has the strongest monopoly.
You might think Google, but it's extremely easy to switch search engine.
But who will deliver literally everything you need by tomorrow? The barriers to entry are much higher. He gets to take a daily shit on the President and still be the richest guy in the world.
And that $3bn subsidy he got in NY. That's how politicians leave their office worth hundreds of millions.

You feel comfortable that a company can have the amount of information, influence and power Google has?
A monopoly is not capitalism. Capitalism exists and is the best system through competitive. Also, for those commie brainlets out there. "Capitalism" is not an "ism", it's not a system that anyone created. It's the natural behaviour of men. Sometimes natural monopolies form, and that's dangerous.

fixed

Attached: 1 g_cUDQ66c2CP4susM-lUJg.png (1024x512, 63K)

ok this is epic

Not many want no regulation they just don't want overregulation

Look up Paul nehlens shall not censor bill

>You feel comfortable that a company can have the amount of information, influence and power Google has
Yes, why wouldn't I? There's been companies with far more power to drive the general consensus throughout history. Before the internet, the media companies were the literal gatekeepers. Google hosts a wide variety of views, even ones, in which, they personally would disagree with but it simply isn't possible for them to curate all content and ensure its advertiser friendly. Facebook and whatever social media company banned you, relies on keeping users on the site and creating a space, which is inclusive for discussion and some you spamming nigger everywhere is gonna turn a lot of people off. As such, you get banned. Learn how to dog whistle or quit bitching, this is near the best time in human history for edge lords like yourself.

>real capitalism has never been tried

Why should a private company be forced to host your views and literally lose money because of it? Would you not agree that literally destroying a corporations ability to curate the content on it's website, isn't an overreach? Then do you feel the same about fake news bills? Of course not because regulation is a one way street for you, in which, you wish to hope to benefit from.

I'm so sick of Jow Forums, they drive me crazy, I want to hang out with you guys this evening.
Government should get involved very little. But they do need to break up monopolies. The best companies sometimes become natural monopolies. And we have the awful duty to sacrifice these.
Google now has power that rivals and exceeds that of governments. And they're developing technology that will allow them to raise an army of robots. They probably won't, but you can't risk it. They could probably sway a tight election either way.

Government needs to be in charge, at the price of sacrificing your best companies.

>Yes, why wouldn't I?

Literal fucking brainlet

Fuck off, we're full.

If they are acting as a public square then yes.

The problem is that the majority of people who hate SJWs are the same ones who promote DEREGULATION instead of breaking up the companies.

If America still had any semblance of left-wing pro-union, pro-worker politics at the forefront instead of neoliberal/neoconservative Jew ideologies, these companies would have been broken up years ago.

Google isn't public square.
Good argument.
Google's not abusing their powers as a "monopoly" to stifle competition, is the general consensus. Google's simply gotten so good at their job, that nobody else could realistically compete and splitting them up would simply just create two corporations doing the same thing or you'd just have a bunch of divided up corporations. Does Google lose its hardware division? If so, why? They've got nowhere near the success of their competetors, even in the Android ecosystem. Does Google lose Android? OK, if so, does the Play Store stay with Google? It's a service they provide? Play this game with all the Google services you use and you get a really sloppy mess, splitting Google up would just fuck up the internet for consumers, more so than it'd benefit them.

>If America still had any semblance of left-wing pro-union, pro-worker politics at the forefront instead of neoliberal/neoconservative Jew ideologies, these companies would have been broken up years ago.
Nobody has answered the question as to why they need to be broken up and what that break up would look like.

I think that the fact you would say this
>Yes, why wouldn't I?
and assume that I'm posting out of butthurt because I've been banned really is a stupid comment and shows that you're totally missing the plot.
I do appreciate the attempt at presenting an opposing view though.

Jeez is banning public racist spergouts all it takes for conservatards to accept trust busting?

I very much understand what you're saying but you're not presenting how Google is abusing this power outside of "muh SJW's" and as such, leaves one to reasonably believe you're an edge lord, mad he got banned and want to force your view-points on everyone using big gubbament.

False paradigm

>Google isn't public square.

that is for the courts to determine ;^)

>Google's not abusing their powers as a "monopoly" to stifle competition, is the general consensus.

load of horseshit

>that is for the courts to determine ;^)
>load of horseshit
Next level arguments right here.

Like Android based on Oracles sauce code?

This is a topic worthy of discussion and I already know what Jow Forums will say. Either the Jews will break them up or the Jews are the ones who don't break them up.
They're driving me crazy. Let me hang out for the evening. I built my own gaming rig and I'm head of IT of my company. Don't send me back to the insane asylum!!


I would say the divisions like YT and Android can probably stay as is. It's their search engine that is problematic. Also they pretty much know where you are at all times. I think, working in finance, the biggest question for me is what happens to shareholders? Gov probably has to compensate them. But yeah, take the search engine division, send half the employees next door and start a rival provider I guess. That no one will use and Google will not lose a single search. It's indestructible.
There's a legitimate case to be made that Google should be broken up, but seems impossible and the government has no fucking what's happening inside.

THIS REPLY APPLIES TO MANY ITT:
My main point is not that Google is abusing its power. Google is obviously the best. Street View is one of humanitie's greatest accomplishments.

My question is: should we accept that a company has so much power. In general in life. And even if you don't think it should be broken up, but how would you do it? How would you advise congress if they hired you as a consultant.

I'm not putting Google on trial, and should have left out the editorialised SJW comment.

Even if you somehow fuck up Google so much, that it's no longer the dominant search engine, who's to stop this new corporation created to become the new dominant player or what if Microsoft becomes the new dominant player, do we rinse wash and repeat? These companies have integrated their search engine into the core of their business, there is no Android without Google, there is no YouTube (a company that's lost money ever quarter) without Google because nobody would want that. It'd be like Microsoft without Windows or Apple without the hardware.

>How would you advise congress if they hired you as a consultant.
If congress hired me as a consultant, I'd tell them to stay as far a fucking way as possible from Google. Because splitting it up would be an absolute mess.

Can't work, these industries are inherently monopolistic so creating fake competition will just make things worse. Something better will eventually emerge.

Why are concerns about the tech industry or technology in general mostly overdramatised bullshit?

Have you noticed how every board you visit starts to suck? Maybe you should consider the possibility that's not a coincidence.

>The simple reason is because Facebook and the gang are monopolies, while Apple is in a highly competitive market fighting for market share.
Well spotted, user.

>one of humanitie's greatest accomplishments
>humanitie's
Obviously I am not one of them


I'm far more concerned with Amazon. First off, being a monopoly, they are killing brick & mortar and high street retail. I invest in commercial real estate and retail is the worst asset you can buy, the only shops that will be left will be big brands making a loss on the high street but are there for marketing/branding reasons, and large dominant shopping centres who offer a leisure experience as well. You will see this trend. And the highest returns in property last year was for industrial and logistics at 13%

And Besos is a slimy little cunt. He owns a political newspaper, and he has a huge stake in government policy. Avoiding a trade war with China and keeping oil prices low (i.e. he benefits if Iran can sell oil).
That $3bn subsidy he got in NYC, that's fishy as fuck. That's how politicians become millionaires, and that's why the WaPo will be favourable to those politicians.
He needs to be broken up that fucking slimy cunt.

look the deal is either every company can do what they want, in which case we should be free to discriminate against anyone, or people can't do whatever they want because there are restrictions on behavior (including corporate behavior), in which case they shouldn't be allowed to prioritize one political team over another if they do indeed act as a public service, a town square, a common carrier, whatever. once you get big enough you either fairly self regulate in which case this wouldn't be an issue or you get broken apart by the government and get your shit kicked in

>just build your own government
kill yourself you dumb fucking nigger

You're obviously projecting, I have no interest in dealing with your teenage angst.

Retail: Have to drive all the way to store. Might have what I want; might have to drive to another and then settle for something similar. Cashier will obnoxiously try to upsell me on warranties and credit cards and shit. Drive all the way back.
Amazon: I press a button on my computer and the exact item I want appears on my front porch 2 days later.
Maybe you should just stop being a whiny cunt about people that are actually improving shit instead.

>GafC

>You might think Google, but it's extremely easy to switch search engine.
>85% users changing from android

Attached: phoneOS.jpg (864x487, 40K)

>2 days
>not 2 hours

>twitter
>tech giant
nigga twitter is dead

Fuck this SJW shit. I'm voting for TRUMP in 2020.

based

pilled and redbased

Yeah they've created an almost perfect service. You love it
But Amazon makes yearly losses of $200 million. They've never turned a profit. What happens when they want to start making lots of profit? Now they've got you by the balls.

That's like Uber, they're charging half the price from taxis, rely on the cheapest slave labour (so does Amazon btw) and rack up losses. How does a company that makes a loss reach hundreds of billions? Investors know that it will pay off when they own the market.

Because they have exemption from being held accountable for content on their site on the grounds that they're neutral, which they aren't
Plus they ain't losing shit. Whether companies like it or not, they're going to advertise on the biggest platforms on the planet.

>Just build your own platforms
>Ok
>Get banned from payment processors
>Just build your own payment processors
>Ok
>Get banned from dealing with banks
>Just build your own bank
>Can't

>recode.net/2018/2/1/16961598/amazon-jeff-bezos-record-profit-11-quarter-q4-2017-earnings
>nytimes.com/2018/04/26/technology/amazon-prime-profit.html
Please be retarded somewhere else.

don't forget youtube and adsense

but there's a difference between monopoly and conglomerate. these companies are large, but they monopolies. now if android merged with iOS we'd be pushing it

Why does no one shittalk microsoft?

Don't know about you, but in the UK the banking sector is being savaged by disruptive technology.

you can't break them up, instead, open their tech and platform so you too can become a competitor

So that you promptly get blacklisted from payment processors, ensuring you cannot become a competitor?

Microsoft was prosecuted for anti-competitive behaviour. So why not Amazon or Googe?

>payment processors
they should be nationalized

>Google now has power that rivals and exceeds that of governments

I don't think Google has the power to make marines rain on your yard in less than 24 hours.

Good luck with that lel.

Because it was clear in hindsight that prosecuting MS was a big mistake that did nothing to help competition and just made Windows shittier. Google of course has been prosecuted similarly in the EU, with a similar outcome.

It's just interesting that every critical talk of big tech excludes Microsoft. Only conversation is about how Windows blows. I guess they've paid their dues?

>prosecuting MS was a big mistake
how? they didn't get broken up at all and didn't suffer a fucking thing
>Google of course has been prosecuted similarly in the EU, with a similar outcome
explain, what they were fined by the EU was a drop in the bucket
you have no idea what you're talking about

MSFT sorta invented proprietary software

and redpilled

based and redpilled

lmao

>do we wash rinse and repeat?
yes, that's how its supposed to fucking work, but doesn't
the monopolies of the mates 19th century were engaging in anticompetitive business practices, and so are the companies this thread is talking about
if another company rose from the ashes and started doing the same shit that caused the company it originally sprang from to have been broken up, then guess what? It gets broken up too because apparently they didn:'t learn the first time that anticompetitive practices are not to be tolerated
but this is America we're talking about where the bought out politicians, and the country, are controlled by these fucking companies/lobbies/"""""interest groups""""" and not a fucking thing is going to actually be done about it

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 70K)

>prosecutions don't accomplish anything useful
>but it's wrong to call them a mistake
Not sure where you're going with this exactly

of course you don't because you're an idiot
you tried to say MS was prosecuted, which they were, but they weren't broken up, they were just fined, and not a large enough fine to actually do any damage, if anything it was a large enough slap on the wrist that forced then to think of how they could get away with it in the future without dealing with litigation again
Google's fine literally wasn't shit either, they weren't broken up, and they didn't suffer
your points saying they suffered are laughable because there literally wasn't any suffering whatsoever, it was all for show

>you tried to say MS was prosecuted, which they were
I did say that
>your points saying they suffered
You hallucinated this part.

then how did they end up "shittier" after the litigation? typically that implies they lost enough money that they had to make sacrifices in order to stay afloat, but this wasn't the case at all
so please explain how they got shittier after litigation?

just wait till the revolution
then we will have communism and no longer have to worry about the giants

1/10
made me reply

While you're at it force chick-fil-a to be open on Sundays. Employees should be allowed to observe religious traditions, not companies.

True, the World runs on Microsoft. They've been doing the same thing for 30 years and since the SJWs and zoomers don't have jobs, no one pays much attention to them anymore. I bet most zoomers couldn't figure out how to write a formula in Excel.
The only monopoly MS have is on the Office suite. And they do charge you an excessive amount for that.
Like Adobe did that too, wasn't the full program being sold for $4,000 in Australia by the cunty CEO?
Facebook, and Amazon are much worse are they're causing harm to society and while Bill Gates was demonized for much less, the Zucc and Jeff Bezos are being portrayed as virtuous men.

APPLEFAGS BTFO

Attached: 1523230254014.gif (540x304, 1.78M)

Read up on the cases a little. Both settlements explicitly forced the companies in question to make their products in specific ways.

>The only monopoly MS have is on the Office suite.
uh no, they still have a monopoly on PC OS, Apple doesn't have anywhere near the amount of marketshare
>And they do charge you an excessive amount for that.
this is true
Microsoft
>On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share itsapplication programming interfaceswith third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance.[29]However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software he proposed final settlement ahead of the judge's verdict. On November 1, 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly released a judgment accepting most of the proposed DOJ settlement.[30]Nine states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Utah, Virginia and Massachusetts) and theDistrict of Columbia(which had been pursuing the case together with the DOJ) did not agree with the settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices.[citation needed]On June 30, 2004, the U.S. appeals court unanimously approved the settlement with the Justice Department, rejecting objections that the sanctions were inadequate.[citation needed]
Google
>The fine was coupled with remedies that would effectively loosen Google’s grip over its Android software, which is used in 80 percent of the world’s smartphones and is a key part of the Silicon Valley company’s business. Those changes, which European regulators ordered to take effect in 90 days, undercut Google’s ability to automatically include its own search and other apps in mobile devices, opening it to more competition in a market that it has dominated.
neither of their products were be forced to made a certain way

Seems like we've got ourselves in an impossible situation. It's impossible to break up a tech service.
The government can either let the tech be monopolistic, or we force them to be shittier, or we literally force them to stop.

but that wrong
first off, nothing has been proven to have been shittier as a result of either antitrust case
secondly, yes, yes you can break up Google in the same way Verizon, and the Bells were broken up: by splitting the divisions from the central company
Android would become it's own company, because guess what? it's not reliant upon the Google search engine, and as AOSP derived ROMs and Copperhead have proven, they don't need Google Play Services to operate
YouTube can become it's own company again because , gasp, they aren't reliant upon Google's search engine or any other IP that Google has unless Google hasn't been forthcoming with how YouTube's services need Google IPs that they don't discuss
Alphabet is just the central nervous system and along with the hardware decisions, would be the main victims of the break-up, oh well

>Jow Forums is one person
>only one Jow Forumstard visits other boards simultaneously and makes them suck

jesus christ, morty, you are making the air around you become stupid.

Attached: FUTO.png (678x678, 384K)

Doing that would just cause them to be bought by Chinese companies.

not him, but Google can make half of the world believe whatever they want in less than 24 hours. I think that beats being able to rain marines on my yard.

Amazon has tangible assets. They have backend infrastructure that handles packages and sells website hosting services. Those parts get split off and become a package handling company and a website hosting service respectively. You continue cutting them down until there's nothing left to spin off.

Except Google, Amazon and Facebook are all still competing with each other for the only thing that matters: advertising space.
They're not monopolies because they're explicitly trying to compete for dominance in every market.
They understand that once an Ocean is red, it's better to just move on to the next (with a handful of exceptions).
Megacorps are the future but to say they're monopolies that don't compete is taking a rather small-minded view that soft-monopolies (the inevitable end point of creating the best version of a service or product and marketing it efficiently) means that those companies are no longer progressing because there's always an untapped market, and therefore there's always an untapped source of potential advertising space

Attached: 1540966505023.gif (320x180, 871K)

As far as tech companies Intel, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum (Formerly Charter Communications, Time Warner, Bright House Networks), Microsoft, Google, and Facebook need to be broken up. These companies do nothing except acquire other companies and after every acquisition they fire the employees and prices go up for everyone. Their size makes legislation completely ineffective at managing them. Break them all up.

also Amazon and Qualcomm

ITT: consumertards with a cause defend tech giants because they like their iDildos.

Attached: FD977694-81ED-4DB5-8D25-B7A08E47B963.jpg (1152x864, 98K)

>get to lecture you on SJW values and even act accordingly. Apple meanwhile has been oddly quiet and under the radar these last few years
What are you even trying to say? How are their socio-economic values impacting my life when using their cloud services? The corporate lords and their employees can for the sake of it eat horse shit all day long and I couldn't care less. The US government split Standard Oil when it got more powerful than the Federal Government in DC. Are you saying Facebook is a direct threat to the government? Zucka is a shy demented sociopath not a Rockefeller kek.

Attached: 29319123.gif (500x282, 931K)

>How are their socio-economic values impacting my life
They're currently programming your future car to decide who dies in an accident.
And Amazon totally programmed SJW values in its AI.

Using the free market to get rid of tech oligarchies is libertarianism you fucking moron

It's really strange. All the blue ticked white privilege white-men haters are still around and better yet have more influence... Fuck off you fucking basedboy.

Hecka fr*cken epic post my dude XD

Only one of those four is a tech company.

btfo

>didn't reverse the order to make it spell fag
one job

considering how the US govt is making a big deal about how data was manipulated on Facebook to "manipulate voters", I'd say yes
I mean they're the ones bitching about it for fucks sake

>Break up American companies
Gee I wonder who's behind this.