Should we?

Hrm, so what you're saying.
Is that the goverment should sieze control of a private country.

Most large companies should be broken up rather than nationalized (???)

>socialist retards actually believe this
Wtf is wrong with generation z.

Yeah, and now they all do the same exact shit, but I have to click on a stupid cookie warning for every single site I go to. Thanks, EU.

regarding amazon: yes lets fuck up companies that are well-run

>nationalized
No.
At most, broken up for being faggots.

No. Especially Amazon, its a shop. Competition needs to happen yesterday. Why is Facebook still around, should have a valid replacement by now. Remember Myspace, msn messenger, etc?

> be user
> put free data in the internet
> companies use free data
> pic related

Attached: 2k48t0.jpg (500x607, 19K)

No but the way platforms are moderated should be regulated. Mainly or only to protect freedom of speech.

Facebook is headed by a Jew. I think Zuckerberg knows exactly what hes doing.
He knows that the boomer senators are fucking clueless. As long as he flies past their radar he can effortlessly lobby/chain the next generation of politicians.

>fighting corporate monopolies by consolidating liberal imperial power instead of revising and enforcing anti-trust laws
truly an epic solution m'laddy

yes, fuck these corporations and how much autonomy they have
if not nationalize then at least break them down and sell parts of the company

No, break up and slightly regulate for privacy and free speech maybe but fuck nationalizing, trust them even less to make things run well

Goverments outside USA just national unplug social networks

>amazon
>a shop

Brainlet detected. Amazon is a logistics company above all else

>Amazon
>well-run

childhood is believing anti-trust can fix things
adulthood is realize that state capitalism is the only way forward

Attached: xi.jpg (814x1223, 98K)

of course

He's kinda right. Nationalize them or deregulate the industry from top (google and co) to bottom (laying lines for internet infrastructure).

The way it's regulated right now the government exists basically to stop competitors from popping up. Wanna lay lines in a new town? Sorry, the municipality is pals with another ISP and it's a racket, have fun fighting in the rigged courts for 2 decades, just to lose and pay millions. Wanna start your own google or youtube? Mysterious DDOS attacks, illegal content uploaded onto your service, payment processors cut you off, etc.

But the reality is that many of these big service companies were seeded by government agencies, so we know what the real deal is.

i want dengist liberals to spontaneously combust

china is the leader of the free world now

Windows should be public domain.

Ofcourse not.
Facebook, Google and Amazon are still jsut companies at the end of the day. Their greatest aspect is that they're basically open for hire to the highest bidder.
Turn them into nationalized companies, and they become the same as any government institution: an instrument of force. You lose any ability (no matter how small it currently is) to negotiate and it becomes a tool of whichever hack-fraud political party is in power at the time. You think voter-suppression and gerrymandering and fucking bureaucracy are bad now? Imagine when the core digital entities get incorporated to pick economic winners and losers.
You get the benefit of using 'free' services.
There is nothing free in this world. The cost for using Google, Amazon and Facebook without any upfront cost is your data.
Shit like this makes me want to sign up with a megacorp like in muh American Cyberpunk novels

Attached: blisk n sloan.jpg (742x753, 321K)

>this nearly trillion dollar company is run like a joke, I could do a better job!
Where's yours?

all these corporate slaves in this thread

This dude might be a socialist for all I know, but just a heads up
>Nationalization is to be distinguished from "socialization", which refers to the process of restructuring the economic framework, organizational structure, and institutions of an economy on a socialist basis. By contrast, nationalization does not necessarily imply social ownership and the restructuring of the economic system. By itself, nationalization has nothing to do with socialism, having been historically carried out for various different purposes under a wide variety of different political systems and economic systems.

I can agree with this but I'd say it's very different industries.
Google, Amazon and Facebook just use the lines, but they're owned by ISPs and such like comcast or verizon. People make a big hullabaloo about FAG (add another A if you include Apple) but the real barriers to competition come from the ISPs.

I can start my own youtube or google right now, it's not that hard. I just host it on my servers and blamo, I have a website (even if it's incredibly unpopular or hard to find). But I can still enter the market. It's effectively free if I run it off my PC (not smart but doable).
But laying down even a little bit of wire costs thousands of dollars.

When you think about it, it's unfair that these companies are all American. Hobbling them would give Chinese companies a fair chance.

For its size, it's remarkably well run.
It has issues but I'd say better to fix those issues within the company via publicizing them than trying to jerry-rig an entire e-commerce site under the supervision of the US Government (a remarkably poorly run organization for its size, with the exception of the military and NIH)

Facebook has shadow profiles for people who don't even have an account though. They track you everywhere by default with all thier buttons on every website everywhere.

>world without work.

Looks like someone needs to spend a week at a factory.

Attached: AHAHAHAHAH FAGGOT.jpg (162x215, 11K)

Nationalization means to put the entity under control of the federal government. One of the key aspects of socialism is state controlled enterprises. Socialism doesn't imply "social ownership" either, that would be communism.

>with the exception of the military
kek

niggers are ugly and disgusting.

I'm not saying it's actually well run, just relatively well run for its size

>Nationalization means to put the entity under control of the federal government.
Not necessarily federal, to be pedantic
>Socialism doesn't imply "social ownership" either
Uhhhh it's like one of the core tenets though
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production
>Social ownership of the means of production is the common defining characteristic of all the various forms of socialism

No, that will just cause NSA on steroids. Enforce anti-trust laws instead and rollback IP and copyright laws to allow competition.

>workers' self-management of the means of production
This is communism. Socialism is the state before communism where a central government controls everything. (Marx believed progress would go from capitalism to socialism to communism)

>srnicek

Before we debate the action, let us define the problem and outline our goals.

Are they "too big to fail", too powerful, controlling a new utility like platform we can not accept, a monopoly (if so how is market boundary defined), manipulating media, ... and or evil taken physical form to [This line has been redacted for religious reasons]

Because different problems require different solutions.

I firmly believe there is a critically massive problem that need intervention. But I do not want a poorly made solution that likely will make this worse. So I would like to clarify what is the problem and what outcome we want.

One interesting point I will add is if everyone paid ~$3~$15 a month it would more then eclipse the market value of our data.
So if someone made a Facebook that did not use data and gave users full control, but charged say $5 a month they would very likely dominate the market once a critical mass was reached. Effectively making more money doing less work and taking Facebook's share. Would that solve the Facebook issue? Could it be applied to Google? (Amazon is more complex, but something to think of) Could that value change also reduce or eliminate adds, given customers would pay more then the marketing firms? That just a table flipping idea, but the data supports it. After all most companies follow money, and collectively we have more then enough to bribe them to follow our demands. (publicly traded companies can even be legally bound by such agreements by private individuals holding stock, no new laws or government action required)

Not sure about you guys, but as a poor 3rd worlder giving more power to government seems like absolutely idiotic decision. You just shift the shafting power to someone who is unaccountable, incompetent, and corrupt.
I trust my dog more than any government officials.

Social media was a mistake.

where do you think you are exactly?

>companies that I don't like because they mine data gets acquired by a government agency that also doesn't care about my privacy.
wow big difference

>This is communism
It's part of both.
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production
>Self-management is a characteristic of many forms of socialism, with proposals for self-management having appeared many times throughout the history of the socialist movement, advocated variously by market socialists, communists, and anarchists.
I think the mistake you're making is thinking there's a single form of socialism and communism with a clear cut line between them and a strict set of tenets that both side adheres to, when in reality, it's a lot messier.
>Marx believed progress would go from capitalism to socialism to communism
Your timeline is a bit off
>It was not until 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution that "socialism" came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticisms that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.
According to this, the transitional period was labeled "socialism" over 30 years after Marx died, so I'm not sure if it was his doing. Could be, but this leads me to believe otherwise.

I love this kind of communists ... "workers unite!" and in the end they are the laziest fucks off all.

People will only try to find a free alternative instead.

>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

There is literally nothing wrong with nationalization. I have more faith in democratically elected leaders serving my interests than companies that only obey people who can afford them.

>I have more faith in democratically elected leaders serving my interests than companies that only obey people who can afford them.
I would say you are incredibly naive to have that opinion.
With a company, there is at least the knowledge that there is a transaction happening and that is the full extent of your relationship.
With politics, you bring morality into the equation and suddenly you have more obfuscation about the nature of your relationship.

And beyond that, you're trusting that your democratically elected leader wouldn't exploit the power at their finger tips over information control to stay 'democratically elected' ad infinitum

>monopolies are bad
>hurr that's why we need government-protected monopolies
The most stupid shit I ever heard all day

Absolutely not. They don't need to be nationalized, they need to be sued into the fucking ground and their executives put on trial.

Why though?

I don't know wtf to do anymore. I don't like socialism or communism, but I feel like capitalism has run its course. Modern capital flows and modern market forces make it just too easy to produce hostage economies. Once the defense contractors figured it out after Clinton originally gutted their market, business goons took it then to the medical industry, and now tech. If anything is worth anything today, it get rolled into a massive fukken conglomerate ball that is bigger and more powerful than most gov'ts. We need a new system.

Attached: 1402541256203.gif (174x188, 1.03M)

>operates with constant losses in the hundred millions
>never made a profit once
>well run

>never made a profit once
lol wat?
Have you heard of AWS?

the company as a whole has never turned a profit, which is why he makes so many government deals, like they did with AWS and the CIA

Let me guess
India?

>With a company, there is at least the knowledge that there is a transaction happening and that is the full extent of your relationship.
>With politics, you bring morality into the equation and suddenly you have more obfuscation about the nature of your relationship.
I honestly can't figure out what you're trying to say.

>And beyond that, you're trusting that your democratically elected leader wouldn't exploit the power at their finger tips over information control to stay 'democratically elected' ad infinitum
If a government does become as corrupt as you're suggesting, people have a responsibility to oust their leaders. In the U.S., we have the right to own weapons which helps ensure a corrupt government can be overthrown.

>and here's why
Nothing will change look at china/North Korea

I think what he was trying to point out was that at least in the case of a company, we at least know clearly that they are motivated by profits alone
But in the other hand in the case of a government entity, they can claim to be motivated by the welfare of the people but are secretly motivated by money, fame etc.

That's to shift taxes you dumb fuck

a yes this is how they start
rally the plebs to get the big guys stuff, and then take the plebs freedom to do anything themself

>contract with CIA
>purpose is to shift taxes
did you eat paint chips as a kid?

This.
A democratically elected leader means nothing in this day and age when they can be bought or at least constrained by the party that they align with in order to have the resources to be elected in the first place.
At that point, you are now dealing with someone who has to engage in a popularity contest with large numbers of idiots in order to keep their job, and in order to win that popularity will often do or say things that external forces request of them in return for campaign resources.
Becoming engaged with a politician is them attempting to get you to lower your guard because they want you to believe they're earnest and genuine and altruistic.

With a corporation or private business, there's none of that. I am coming to them with my money or data and getting some service or good in return. End of negotiations. They can try to fuck me over but I can at least be aware of them trying to fuck me over and take steps to avoid or defend or counteract theirs.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/16/amazon-tax-avoidance-profits

>2013 article
nope, all deals with the government have been after that in order to keep the stock prices high
you are so naive if you think its about tax purposes and not shareholders

Look fren, I'm not saying Amazon doesnt deal with the CIA, ofcourse they do
What I'm saying is most e-commerce businesses got big by shouldering ALL of the losses on failed transactions, because in the end of the day, trusting Amazon to pay for that book that arrived banged up like shit and give you a new one is what got them here today
Most companies work like that, Amazon just made the best of a bad situation, got big, then kept playing it like that

they were one of the first, their original business was selling books, then selling eBooks, then diversified and turned Amazon into a marketplace
the operated at a loss because they wanted more and more people to use them, which raised their networth even though they were hemorrhaging money
thus formula caused their stock to rise, and you have to remember that those who own the most stock incorporations like them are more than likely banks/lensing outfits
that was one way they stated afloat, then they diversified some more and created AWS, then diversied more and started selling their own tablets/devices
now they're looking into setting up a government market place and wanting to be the main contractor for the GSA/DOD, its no wonder they're considering they're new HQ location to be in Northern Virginia right outside of DC and not far from Langley

Social media must be removed entirely.
youtube.com/watch?v=XaIV9cnAvyc

>democractically elected leader
You need to emphasise that you get to vote from pre-prepared choices. Who prepares these choices?
Well in the current system it is the people who fund politician's advertising for elections that prepares the choices. IE corporations and the wealthy. They fund candidates that support what they want, and don't fund ones that don't. Pretty simple, and the end result is you get corporate stooge A or corporate stooge B.

Most of social media is a problem only because of infinite scroll
Prove me wrong
Also
>giving some people what they want
>wrong
If anything, it puts the rest on easy mode, not wasting time and all that

I think what needs to happen is more well defined boundaries on data collection and usage, and regulations on online privacy. None of these companies are really such monopolies that breaking them up is the best solution (maybe Amazon a few years from now).
The thing is, whatever egregious things the big corps are doing, the smaller guys are doing as well if there's nothing stopping them. Except they are even less accountable.

gibsmedat muhfugga

>Here's why that's a good thing.

So get some programmers to make a distributed network thing-a-mado. After all if everyone is hosting part of this alternative Facebook then the cost are rolled into their computer and energy bill, which are things most don't considered when calculation cost. Re-brand it as "FREE" and setup a donation site for core manage management. It similar systems work for "Free" OS and other software, and Facebook is just a software portal to a network of others building up to what we call social media. With all the parts there someone will put it together.

It is not free, but given how most people don't seem to understand that word they will mistake it as such.

>guardian opinion page
the lowers you can go in tech journalism

Attached: C4ceryyUkAAVAZ_.jpg (1080x1080, 134K)

it has always been that way. marx himself was a moocher. communism is the neverending tale of "I don't want to work, just give me your stuff".

>exception of the military and NIH)
I work for the NIH. That is a joke.

>we have the right to own weapons which helps ensure a corrupt government can be overthrown.
A populous that does not go out and threaten the government are worthless even if they have the right to bear weapons.

Laziness and optimization of work is one of the most important drivers of humanity's advancement.
You're a caveman who will never achieve anything but short term "just existing". You will have no legacy at all and will be inevitably and completely forgotten.

Close but no cigar.
[spoiler]Indonesia[/spoiler]

Make them abide by the Constitution for American users since they've become the modern soapbox.

As will you. And as will every great leader and figure in human recorded history as the protons themselves that make up matter wither and die until not even the echos of echos of humanity exist.

>government runs facebook
>legally required to have an account
t-thanks

>government runs facebook
>it is now bound by the constitution

Oh dear

>government runs facebook
>it is now entirely public space and subject to all the laws related to activity in public space

Why isn't Microsoft on the list?

Hard to control a company that employs mostly people from the other side of the world.

>No googlenigger spying us ever again
Sounds like a good thing

Well you don't necessarily have to jump from one extreme to another, there's social democracy, Third Way, all sorts of centrist positions. You can believe in economic interventionism and mixed economy rather than thinking the solution to capitalism's issues is social ownership etc.