Bannon wants Google and Facebook to be regulated as public utilities

Probably should be I dunno. They're both cunts.

The EU has been robb... Err fining Microsoft for decades. Google is just the new free money for them.

remember guys, the liberals are the fascists :^)

>>162145
OK but I don't understand why ISP need blanket deregulation but specific companies that serve media are fair game for regulating.

sets a very bad standard for free speech

>>162146
You don't really understand this article do you.

>>162148
i'm tired of identity politics obfuscating everything on the left and but there's also liberitarian circle jerk on the right. yet there's no apparent outrage in right wing media over stuff like this.
If it was someone in the obama admin proposing this it would be dissected into infinitesmal pieces to determine the ideological motivations, you'd probably have outlets raising alarm over govt censorship.

>>162151
Facebook, Google are monopolies though

>>162155
There are no monopolies of the Internet. It's the fucking Internet. Just because everyone's grandma is using Facebook does not stop you from using other social media websites.

>>162157
Alphabet and Facebook are conglomerates. Not websites.

>>162145
>being a cunt means we should label them incorrectly

Internet has become a public utility, things using the internet are not. Bannon once again doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

>>162157
Not according to the EU.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/27/technology/business/google-eu-antitrust-fine/index.html

>>162146
Nothing wrong with fascism, certainly better than (((liberal democracy))).

>>162160 #
And? So is Koch industries. Break them up. No conglomerats allowed!
I don't use Facebook at all. It has 0 impact on my life either way. Nobody needs Facebook. If I had to, I'd star using Bing without any impact on my quality of life. It's not terrible, I'm just more accustomed to Google. If they stop indexing websites I like yeah I'd switch.

It's not so much that they want to break up monopolies as it is they don't do it through robust anti-trust regulation that applies uniformly and in an unbiased manner (that'd be BIG GOVERNMENT). Instead they just wanna micomanage companies. "Fuck WaPo. Why isn't Amazon paying internet tax?" "Google and Facebook aren't friendly enough to serving our fake news... I mean free speech. I'm afraid we need to break them up"

>>162144
>pushing for regulating internet

How do you like your "net neutrality" now, idiots? Let the government regulate something and this is what you get.

>>162191
Lol you trying to make the Kochs a thing is cute

Finally! We get to arrest the lib-traitors and finally put them in camps and gas them. Fucking finally! Fuck your (((rights))) and your faggot (((constitution))).

>>162157
>Just because everyone's grandma is using Facebook does not stop you from using other social media websites.
that's exactly what it does.

this is the 21st century monopoly. The one that is by definition not actually a monopoly. Sure, nobody is forcing you to use Windows. Go ahead, use Linux. But good luck being able to fucking make it function without knowing how. Good luck when every other computer out there runs Windows.

Sure, nobody's forcing you to use facebook. But what are you gonna use? myspace? The has been that only has 50 million users?

besides, all your friends use facebook. How are you gonna communicate with them?

it is definitely a monopoly. Google creates all the algorithms used by pretty much every other search engine out there, and they are the one with the most refined functionality. They just aren't "technically" a monopoly because there is "technically" competition.

This was the modern model of monopoly pioneered by Bill Gates when he saved Apple from bankruptcy. the kind of Monopoly that doesnt need to destroy all the competition, because it still controls 99.9% of the market anyway, and the competition it allows to exist serves as a shield against anti-trust laws.

>>162144
Okay, but when will the ISPs be regulated as public utilities?
>*crickets*

>>162144
Good, purge those goddamned commies.

>>162198
I'm pretty okay with regulating Google and Facebook if we also start regulating ISPs as utilities.

>>162297
If you like being a bootlicker for government intervention, then sure purge them.

>>162147
>one side is pro net neturality
>the other isn't

There is your answer.

>>162259
Without looking at the law, what essential goods or service is Facebook/Google hording?

I can still do all of those facebook items by e-mail, chat, less popular social sites, or even foreign country equivalents.

Google search engine is by far the biggest tool it wields. But again where is the monopoly? Bing, yahoo, duckduck, etc crawl the web good enough to be suitable alternatives. They got a bunch of cutting edge projects they work on but thats it.

The only monopolies that are dangerous is Verizon/Comcast ones that they have over broadband. They get away free with being the only providers of service in areas, treat their customers like shit, and block state efforts to provide broadband to areas the private sector can't make bank in.

Its getting to the point now where along with Amazon, monopoly = does too many things.

>>162176
EU are bleeding cunts and have to hit up something to stay afloat.

>>162335
It's more about purging marxist ideology from existance.

>>162337
Best way to do that is let the marxist speak and they will be purged naturally.

>>162335
>The only monopolies that are dangerous is Verizon/Comcast ones that they have over broadband. They get away free with being the only providers of service in areas, treat their customers like shit, and block state efforts to provide broadband to areas the private sector can't make bank in.
>Its getting to the point now where along with Amazon, monopoly = does too many things.
And Comcast and Verizon are monopolies that are protected by FCC regulations.
If public utilities are so good for competition, then why do we only have one electric company to chose from and why is there so little investment in the electrical grid?

>>162367
There is little investment because the government is inept at spending properly. Its why so many stations use equipment still running windows 95. When you stop and think about it, the government only puts major investment into this country when under threat (NAZIS, Soviet Union). Otherwise the money goes missing, political parties sabotage each other, and the public is distracted by blaming X non wealthy group.

The broader problem is that this has become an one or the other issue. Instead it should be looked at that in some cases having the gov step in is good and others horrible. If the private sector won't serve small towns in the backwoods because profits, they shouldn't be able to block the government when it tries to fill the missing void.

And I have never heard the argument that public utilities spurs competition. Rather that public ownership ensures security, fair treatment, reasonable quality, and availability. Now you can argue if the gov actually meets those objectives but that is different ball park.

Y A N D E X
A
N
D
E
X

>>162259
>The one that is by definition not actually a monopoly.

Did you even think before posting? I don't even need to refute all your other points, although it is easy.

>>162259
>But good luck being able to fucking make it function without knowing how.

Anyone who can figure out Windows on their own can figure out Linux on their own. Not that they'd wouldn't have any help since there's tons of books and videos on it along with millions of other Linux users.

>Good luck when every other computer out there runs Windows.

Millions of other computers run Mac OS and/or Linux

>Sure, nobody's forcing you to use facebook. But what are you gonna use? myspace? The has been that only has 50 million users?
>besides, all your friends use facebook. How are you gonna communicate with them?

Discord, Snapchat, Kik, Tox, Skype, Twitter, Tumblr, iMessage, Facetime, Email, text messaging, phone calls, snail mail, meeting them in person and talking face to face in the real world...

Love how liberals are suddenly in favor of big mega corporations that are actively working to push their political agendas and are creating online profiles of your entire internet history.

But only when it's Apple, Google, and FB.

>>162379
You mean communists.

Cause liberalism is a codeword for communism.

>>162379
I love how conservatives are suddenly in favor of communism.

>>162379
I'm not in favor of it because it's an obvious political powergrab, and a bastardization of anti trust law. Apple, google, and facebook all have several perfectly adequate alternatives, especially in the case of apple, and facebook. Also it's not liberals who are pushing for corporations to have more freedom in buying/selling user data, republicans passed a bill not to long ago allowing ISPs to do that very thing.

>>162383
Communist here. I take offence to that good sir. We communists are hard working decent individuals with a great work ethic... Not some fucking freeloading special snowflake welfare case liberal...

>>162393
Hey, you advocate for as much governmental interventions as those fucking liberals.

>shitlibs are communists guys
Corporations are far too beloved for something as destructive as communism to ever take hold. Your average libtraitor has several game companies they're devoted to, fast food places they eat at, upscale grocery stores they buy their food from, tv channels that they watch, movie studios that produce their capeshit, along with the staples of netflix, google, and reddit. You can talk all you want about cultural 'marxism' but true red blood communism died the day the NES was released.

>>162144
>the company was hit with a record antitrust fine of $2.7 billion for favoring its own comparison-shopping service in its search results.


This is so retarded. I'm not allowed to advertise my own business over competition now? Get fucked EU.

>>162398
There is no "government" in communism, the state has been bypassed by community, the word "commune" means the same (and is supposed to be pronounced the same) in communism and communion.

>>162451
Wrong you idiot. The only thing that is banned under Communism is private property. All independent decision are banned. So you end up having NOTHING BUT government. Literally EVERYTHING is under 100% control of bureaucrats under communism.

>>162144
So the right finally wants the same thing as the left but since it's not the left that is crying for it is is bad. Hilarious.

>>162463
More like (a subset of) te right wants the same thing as (a subset of) the left.

>>162144
The only monopolies on the internet are ISPs. By Bannons thinking, UBER and Twitter need the same regulation

>>162210
B..b..Bannon?

>>162259
Nigga use a MacBook. Windows has no monopoly over OS.

>>162146
They still are.

>>162372
>Rather that public ownership ensures security, fair treatment, reasonable quality, and availability. Now you can argue if the gov actually meets those objectives but that is different ball park.
No, it's the same ball park. If public utilities can't do what they promised then why do we want them at all? Are we suppose to hope that this time they will get it right despite their long list of getting it wrong?

>>162372
>government is inept at spending properly.
>public ownership ensures security, fair treatment, reasonable quality, and availability.

Imagine being this incoherently brainwashed.

Break them up, they are functionally monopolies. No need to make them public utilities, and doing so would stifle innovation.

>>162512
Except they are not monopolies, you drooling retard. Competition has a far higher chance of succeeding against them than in, say, the ISP market.
Facebook's features can be handled by many other apps, or by simple email or phone call/text.
Google is not the only search engine, and whether or not it's the best is even debatable. Even with how popular it is, you are never limited to only google in certain regions.

You have no idea what a monopoly is.

>>162533
I'm talking about ideologue monopolies;
For too long Liberalfags have a hold on the Tech Industry. It time for us True Humans to take it back.

>>162534
Cool
That's also not a monopoly, at least not one that should be regulated by government.

If you believe there is a market for an alt-right facebook or google, then you are free to invest in such a venture.

>>162502
First. My point was nobody ever said public was good for competition. That instead it did better than those 4 points I mentioned.

Second, baby out with the bath water mentality. The private sector has proven again and again it will gladly fuck over the consumer be it the banks, medicine, electronics, prisons, etc if left to its own devices. Hell we wouldn't even have the fucking ACA if the private markets worked as advertised. A big example right now is Trump's attempt to privatize the air traffic control. While it sounds good on the surface, there are currently a lot of security loop holes it would lead to such as foreign national's having access to classified flight plans and more.

Now instead of going full Venezuela, we try to fix those imperfections on a case by case bases because we recognize the private sector has faults.

>>162504
Imagine having this low a reading comprehension. Well actually (you) just need to look in a mirror.

>>162504
>>>162372
>>government is inept at spending properly.
>>public ownership ensures security, fair treatment, reasonable quality, and availability.
>Imagine being this incoherently brainwashed.
Don't know, but you seem like the right person to ask since you put to opposing posts into one.

>>162608
I totally accept that the private sector isn't a panacea, but also know that government isn't a cure. I take it that most on this board don't remember a time when there was only one phone company and you had to pay .50 a minute to call state to state. The government broke up the monopoly of Ma Bell through deregulation and suddenly you had a whole slew of options. prices went down and choices went up...Until we started to regulate again in the late 90s.
I can also say that it was Democrats and Republicans with their lobbyist friends who are the cause of it.

>>162482
I'm sure all that stuff about Bannon is bullshit. Why would he shit on the Constitution and the rule of law? He just wants to regulate these entities.

>cited three unnamed sources

Sure.

>>162335
>Without looking at the law, what essential goods or service is Facebook/Google hording?
communication and information. You have a few giant internet corporations that dominate the flow of information and the narrative of their particular area of the internet.

>>162376
not an argument.

Or are you too stupid to understand what I'm saying?
Under the current definition of monopoly as it is understood- they are not monopolies. because by the current definition, a monopoly is when one company crushes all other competition and becomes the sole provider of a good or service.

However, these companies can still effectively operate as monopolies WITHOUT triggering classical anti-monopoly laws, because they allow a small amount of competition. Microsoft allows Apple to Exist, and they do not compete with each other, they both have their unique markets. There's also dozens of smaller free operating system alternatives to windows. But they don't really compete with it because Windows is so impossibly giant, and has such refined functionality that nobody is going to actively "downgrade" to a system where half your programs dont work and you need to know how to run command lines.

This is why I call them 21st century monopolies. In practice, Microsoft might as well be a monopoly. Google is most definitely a monopoly, considering their search algorithms are used by almost every other search engine. but because they are not the sole providers, they remain untouched by traditional monopoly laws.

Thus, they are monopolies that are not monopolies by definition.

>>162483
how many offices do you know that use anything but windows?

go to any bank or generic corporation, and they will be using windows, without fail. Mac OS is only used by hispster startups and anything to do with the creative business. But Windows is fairly entrenched where it matters.

Love it! Take away their swords. Go Bannon Go!

>>162703
Anonymity is not a right!

>>164799
You could have saved yourself typing that out by saying they found loopholes, but I agree with what you're saying otherwise.

Did someone say that Google & Facebook were in collusion with the Intelligence Agencies? I must have missed that one. Google controls the Internet. Plain & Simple! Bannon wants to strip them of that power.

>>162157
>using Facebook