Considering the utter alienation of right-leaning opinions on Big Tech platforms under the guise of not being "advertiser friendly", they have a bloody tough fight on their hands.
I will be very curious when the Google Anti-Trust suit drops to see how the tech world reacts. We've seen a lot of consolidation in the past few years- Google seems to be gobbling up any tech company that collects a lot of personal information without consequence.
There are a lot of Googlers on HN who blindly follow Google, and more people who worship the ground Google walks on; i'll be curious to see what the discussion is like when Google's evil is laid out for the world to see. Lot of the stuff Google (and other companies like Facebook) is indefensible when you look at it from an anti-trust point of view. Stuff like this article, where Google is working with people who are against what a lot of Googler's stand for will be an interesting show.
I think we'll see Google pander to whatever administration is presiding over the anti-trust suite. No matter which US party it is, we'll see Google go vehemently against its stated morals in multiple ways including increasing access for security agencies and changing their strategies for political donations. The same crowd that defends them now will find excuses in order to continue to support them no matter what they do.
They have in common the belief "working at google is presently the right choice for me." (Unless they've already given their two-weeks notice I suppose.)
I would blindly follow them too if I worked for them. We're entering the technocratic feudalism stage of our country's history. Your government won't be able to ensure the safety and wellbeing of you and your loved ones, but your FAANG employer will. As long as you're a valued employee, that is.
> We've seen a lot of consolidation in the past few years- Google seems to be gobbling up any tech company that collects a lot of personal information without consequence.
Like what? I can only remember what seemed like some bad vr acquisitions and companies that were basically already Google Cloud products.
Google has had a vertical monopoly on search/advertising for at least 15 years now and nobody's (nobody that matters, anyway) said a peep about it really.
Between Android, Chrome, Google Search and AdWords, 99% and some nines of all web browsing globally is done with a Google product sitting in the middle.
Even if you're using ddg, most pages you browse will have gclids somewhere.
>There are a lot of Googlers on HN who blindly follow Google
Which is weird because internally people are pretty damn skeptical. If anything is found I'm all for doing what is determined "correct". I would worry that people with little understanding would make that call but time will tell.
On the flipside of the quoted statement, I will say that Googlers have a far better understanding about what is collected/done (in other instance IE privacy) that your random at HN so are more likely to not be so dismissive/fear mongering. When you've seen the stomach of the best it's far less scary.
> I will say that Googlers have a far better understanding ...it's far less scary.
I've heard variations on this theme from a lot of Googlers, and it always seems like "just trust us!" but then they can't or won't publicly disclose any reasons why we should.
> We refuse to build a database of people based on their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs. We refuse to facilitate mass deportations of people the government believes to be undesirable.
A bunch of Googlers signed that, but I'd wager Google has _already_ built that database. Maybe not explicitly, but I bet Google has a decent estimate of their users' religious beliefs, race, immigration status, etc. Those are valuable categories for marketers to target!
One one hand, they expound the ideas of social justice and present themselves as a group that wants to make the world a better place, while undermining what they say they want to do by their actions.
Google is a great example of the ultra-liberal left, where they are just as racist and scummy as the ultra-conservative, but they wrap it in a veil of "we want to help you and make things better for you." it's a form of gas-lighting.
The lean into orwellian concepts under the guise of making the world a better place, when in reality it only makes it better for the people profiting from their technology. Google Loves LGBTQ, except when they're using YouTube to make a livelihood. In that case, Google fucks them.
It's employment of "do as I say, not as I do" or "the upper-class liberal that calls the cops on the black dude walking down their street but has a Black Lives Matter sign in their yard." This ain't just Google, they're just the example I'm talking about right now.
Google isn't perfect but I think the real deal will be the anti-trust cases against Amazon. Search for "Google Nest Mini" on Amazon and the top result is an Echo Dot followed by dozens of accessories for the Google Nest Mini but no Google Nest Minis.
Apple hasn't been perfect with the app store. I think Microsoft ironically is best positioned for success when the government clamps down on user data abuses and big-tech antitrust.
> Apple is the only company I can see that won't be hit.
This is kind of astonishing logic. The obvious case against Apple is that they control totally the market for iOS apps, but even if you take the Apple supporter's argument that you should use the overall app market (i.e. including Android apps), even though they can't run on the same devices, Apple would still have more of the overall phone app market than Amazon has of the online retail market. And yet Amazon is a problematic monopoly and Apple isn't?
> Search for "Google Nest Mini" on Amazon and the top result is an Echo Dot followed by dozens of accessories for the Google Nest Mini but no Google Nest Minis.
Type this into Google:
site:amazon.com google nest mini
The results are basically the same as you're describing. Maybe Amazon just doesn't sell it?
> Big Tech marshals a right-leaning army of allies for antitrust fight
“Status quo elites marshal an army from the faction defined by defending the power of status quo elites for fight that might threaten their power” has to be, at least very nearly, the most dog-bites-purpose-built-dog-chew-toy story in the history of news.
The unusual aspect of this is that the antitrust threat comes from the far right largely as retaliation for platforms being insufficiently accommodating to the far right, not that the defenders are the classic center-right-to-solid-right defenders of entrenched corporate power.
Google routinely funds the campaigns of far right US politicians and pays lip service to social justice issues. The latter has historically been sufficient to appease the employees.
The key sign of a sector's maturity is its presence on both/all sides of the aisle.
I never go into another country thinking "wait did you guys just elect extremists because if so that makes me not want to do business here" so why would I treat America differently?
When people use the term "virtue signaling" as a criticism of an organization's actions, it is based on the observation that the same organizations doing it are involved in plenty of other countries and didn't consider the political outcomes at all, only the convenience of what is possible in that country. Ireland, Cayman Islands, Netherlands are part of the standard cocktail, and when the head of state is rolling out a red carpet, I do not care how they got there.
The "right-leaning army" is just toll-paying to try and make this go away. Aside from Warren, the right is where the anti-trust charges are coming from.
It's like getting pulled over in a small town -- you pay a lot into the local economy to make the ticket disappear.
> Biden slammed big tech companies in a January interview with the New York Times, saying he had “never been a fan of Facebook” and arguing that online platforms should not be allowed immunity for content posted by users.
> Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition.
> Sanders, who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the breakup of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon.
Make no mistake, this isn't the Clintons' party anymore (or it won't be for much longer). The young blood hates business and corporations and is pulling the whole party in that direction.
And Warren, whom I specifically mentioned, is the only one of those with both the right political office and sufficient motivation to see through doing something about it.
Sanders hasn't gotten anything meaningful done as a legislator for pretty much his whole career and Biden at this point will say anything that his handlers put in front of him.
Given the opposing positions that he still firmly holds with regard to prisons and drug crime legislation (mostly that he championed), signs point to no.
Biden triangulates on those issues because older black and hispanic voters (who are a key part of his base) have fairly law-and-order views on that front. (Contrast what protestors are saying with what the mayors of Baltimore and Atlanta are saying.) Biden has a lot more room to appease the left on economic issues without causing reduced enthusiasm among his base.
The question is: how much power do you think Jamie Dimon/Mike Bloomberg Democrats have in the party going forward? Are you going to bet your share price on it?
The wind is firmly blowing the other way nationally though. On both sides of the political aisle.
It's unlikely that his handlers share the political opinions of his base, which was my point. It's also not where they're spending their campaign dollars. They assume his base is on lock (and judging from my social media filter-bubble, which is 90% middle-aged & older black and hispanic male voters, I can assure you it's not). He's a say one thing and do another kind of guy.
As for the power of Mike Bloomberg Democrats, well...politics runs on money.
> "breaking up big tech" fits squarely into the left's anti-corporate narrative
True but, (anecdotally) a growing number of my center and right-leaning acquaintances are warming to the idea of breaking up and/or (at least partly) nationalizing parts of the economy - particularly big tech - because we appear to be in a cold - potentially hot - war with China.
imo this idea is going to be coming from the right more frequently in the near future.
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Being in the good graces of the left isn't something you can count on. The fact that you got rich by making products people want and need and made peoples' live better is something that will be forgotten as soon as its politically convenient. Given which way the winds are blowing, "Big Tech" isn't making a mistake by trying to make some "right-leaning" friends.
Gotta say, as a right leaning individual, they've got no support from me and I won't forget the censorship or selective targeting of conservatives. I'm as pro-capitalism as it gets but when I see freedom of speech threatened in the way that social media and big tech companies have been wont to do these days, I will not support their defense. They can be broken up just like Ma Bell and maybe we'll all be better off for it.
I hear about the supposed selective targeting of conservatives all the time, but don't really see any evidence for it. Every well known conservative has a huge following on Twitter or YouTube. People sometimes point to Alex Jones as an example but he was clearly banned for smearing the parents of murdered Newtown children. I'm not saying that big tech doesn't lean left, but I don't see evidence that they target people just for being conservative.
Yeah, they fact check or block obvious parody tweets that are pro-conservative like the "racist baby" parody tweet a few weeks ago. They arbitrarily inject warning labels on Trump tweets while ignoring anti-cop tweets calling for violence and destruction (not just this year, going back to 2016 even [1]).
The head of Twitter's Head of Site Integrity had this to say about red states:
“I’m just saying,” he tweeted in November 2016, “we fly over those states that voted for a racist tangerine for a reason.”
It doesn't just lean left. It actively hates, demeans and silences the right.
arbitrarily inject warning labels on Trump tweets while ignoring anti-cop tweets calling for violence and destruction
It's not arbitrary for twitter to impose a higher level of scrutiny on @realDonaldTrump (~83M followers) than on accounts from non-famous people with a very small number of followers.
It actively hates, demeans and silences the right.
Trump: 83 million followers
McConnell: 7.1 million
Ted Cruz: 3.7 million
Ben Shapiro: 2.8 million
Tucker Carlson: 3.6 million
@GOP: 2.4 million
Excuse me, if I build an email newsletter list with 83 million subscribers there's no email fact checking injection ministry of truth at the IMAP layer of the protocol. If 83 million people choose to follow Trump, then Twitter really has no arbitrary say. They really are breaking their social contract and section 230 protection and they're becoming an editorial force with the power to shape public opinion as they exercise that. Just as it would be a step too far for SMS providers to inject their opinion into my private text messages, it is a step too far for Twitter to inject their opinion and arbitrarily target conservatives. They deserve all the hell they are going to get for this approach. I fully support breaking them up or suing them out of existence. Freedom of speech is too damn important for a handful of power-hungry silicon valley Inquisitors to control.
if I build an email newsletter list with 83 million subscribers
Yes, if Trump builds his own newsletter he is free to do what he wants. But when he's posting on someone else's platform, he's subject to their rules. Welcome to how the world works!
They really are breaking...section 230 protection
This off repeated talking point is wrong as a matter of law. There's a reason that all kinds of people have made this claim but never actually initiated any legal proceedings. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on.
You might want to read this explainer (from a conservative lawyer) explaining how this law actually works:
it would be a step too far for SMS providers to inject their opinion into my private text messages
Tweets aren't private communication. It's a broadcast medium subject to far different rules.
Freedom of speech is too damn important for a handful of power-hungry silicon valley Inquisitors to control.
Freedom of speech isn't under attack. Trump can say whatever he wants. He has one of the most powerful (figurative) megaphones in the world. A couple of small editorial comments on a single website, even a popular one, will not meaningfully reduce his (or anyone else's) ability to have their say.
You say that Twitter shouldn't be able to express its own editorial opinion. It's actually that point of view that attacks free speech.
Trump is an extremely high profile rule breaker, and he has been given a lot of slack on twitter up until very recently. Making disparaging remarks about Trump voters is extremely unprofessional but it isn't evidence of selectively targeting conservatives on the platform. The idea that these companies "actively silence the right" is simply false; there is an endless sea of conservatives all over twitter and every other big platform. Ironically, on the platforms that conservatives control liberals aren't present or welcomed and they are openly ridiculed with extreme ferocity and have been for decades.
The debate and acceptable forms of discussion are so far "left" these days that it's hard to see it and point to concrete examples of it.
E.g. look at /r/politics (or most popular default sub-reddits) on Reddit. It's ridiculously anti-conservative and anti-Trump, yet it's being portrayed as impartial and just "politics", when in fact it's a huge pro-left section of Reddit that is unfairly given front-page preference and backing. No right-leaning sub gets that, and in fact gets the opposite treatment such as /r/the_donald. One could say that the left-leaning individuals and groups are gaming the system and what we're seeing is a consequence of that.
In the early days, they were altruistic and doing things to make people's lives easier. And then they turned into advertising company who sells personal info that was gathered under a pretense of good faith and respect of privacy. Disliking google isn't a political whim; google's practices are a capitalistic whim. When those practices went from "do no evil" to "profit however and don't look to closely at the ethics", that's when they lost the support of this "leftist".
"It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees"
Counter argument, it's wildly more important that people be able to monetize their data and most of the people against it are failing to appreciate how economically progressive data monetization is. People used to /pay/ for software, not just professional software but software in general. And when they didn't pay for that software it was often because there simply wasn't software of that kind for their use case. Being able to sell data is the primary reason consumers have access to the plethora of free and quality services that they have today. There has never been this many good free games, this much free music, nor any other similar quanitity of free and useful services like office software in history and a large amount of that is due to data monetization. It's nearly impossible for me to care about what the data privacy advocates have to say when the movement has historically handwaved away the social benefits of data monetization while clinging to dubious icons like Snowden and Manning.
Although various individuals from the conservative with a small 'c' world plus libertarians are cited in this article, the arguments put forth here are for me another example of a misunderstanding of what 'right leaning' might mean in this era. Proponents and builders of surveillance capitalism and associated global data gathering for corporate and state uses tend to lean 'left', as in neo liberal left. The older tradition of conservatism tends to be much more interested in personal privacy and respect for the individual. Example:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/facebook-an...
Neo conservatives and neoliberals (the UK Guardian is a good example of globalist neo liberal ideas) are largely the same thing with some nuances. Just as there are various flavors of 'left' this is also true of the 'right'.
"Proponents and builders of surveillance capitalism and associated global data gathering for corporate and state uses tend to lean 'left', as in neo liberal left."
Neoliberalism is a right wing ideology, not a left wing one.
""Neoliberalism" is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade
barriers" and reducing state influence in the economy, especially through privatization and austerity."[1]
This is pretty much the opposite from what those on the left aim for.
Those on the left want nationalization, not privitazation, regulation of capital markets, not deregulation, price controls, not their elimination, and more state influence in the economy, not less.
@pmoriarty There is little to choose between Republican and Democrat politics in the US, they are both merely flavors of neoliberalism/neocon policies as @mola identifies.
There are other branches of the left and right but they are suppressed, ignored or slandered in the corporate media.
Silicon valley corporate political allegiances are a good example of neoliberalism, currently wrapped in identity politics
It depends on which "left" you're talking about - it's not quite so simple. Clinton's 90's administration is frequently (and I would say accurately) described as neoliberal. The democratic party has become much more business and corporate friendly over the past 40 years. I think you'd be right in describing modern-day progressives as the "left" that you are defining here in opposition to neoliberalism. Does that make neoliberalism itself right-wing? Are establishment democrats right-wing if they have adopted neoliberal policies, as many have? Is Clinton now considered to have been a right-wing president by that definition?
I think these are interesting questions to ask now as the left, broadly speaking, doesn't have a strong political identity, with many progressives further left of the democratic party and other disaffected voters leaning libertarian.
Would it be possible to change the anti-trust laws so that companies can not merge or be acquired if the sum of their assets and revenue exceeds a set dollar figure adjusted for inflation?
If A(assets + revenue) + B(assets + revenue) >= $, then not allowed to merge.
This will promote competition from upstarts and increase the efficiency of these companies by preventing them from gobbling up every new market.
reply