ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, February 18, 2019

Digital gangsters

As an ex-libertarian, I am instinctively hostile to government regulation. But, as we have learned over the last decade, there are much worse things than regulation by nationalist governments.
Facebook deliberately broke privacy and competition law and should urgently be subject to statutory regulation, according to a devastating parliamentary report denouncing the company and its executives as “digital gangsters”.

The final report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee’s 18-month investigation into disinformation and fake news accused Facebook of purposefully obstructing its inquiry and failing to tackle attempts by Russia to manipulate elections.

“Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised ‘dark adverts’ from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day,” warned the committee’s chairman, Damian Collins.

The report:
  • Accuses Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder and chief executive, of contempt for parliament in refusing three separate demands for him to give evidence, instead sending junior employees unable to answer the committee’s questions.
  • Warns British electoral law is unfit for purpose and vulnerable to interference by hostile foreign actors, including agents of the Russian government attempting to discredit democracy.
  • Calls on the British government to establish an independent investigation into “foreign influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation and the sharing of data” in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 EU referendum and the 2017 general election.
  • Labour moved quickly to endorse the committee’s findings, with the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, announcing: “Labour agrees with the committee’s ultimate conclusion – the era of self-regulation for tech companies must end immediately.
Highly regulated corporations are not known for their performance or their innovation. But let's face it, Ma Bell and the various utilities have served the interests of the American people considerably better than Facebook and the other social media giants have. It's time for the national governments around the world to crack the whip and take the international digital gangsters firmly in hand by turning them into utilities.

This is one issue upon which the Left and the Right should be able to find plenty of common ground.

Labels: ,

54 Comments:

Blogger Zerokage February 18, 2019 4:59 AM  

How can you crush private monopolies and oligopolies without regulation? Rent seekers like Facebook should get wrecked.

Blogger Vaughan Williams February 18, 2019 5:01 AM  

The Internet is to gossip what heroin is to a small glass of sherry after dinner.

Blogger Yordan Yordanov February 18, 2019 5:15 AM  

They are really pissed off social media killed the Clinton presidency, aren't they?

Blogger wahr01 February 18, 2019 5:29 AM  

Oh look, the UK government attempting to convert social media into uni-directional neo-marxist propaganda.

I don't see how this is any better than SF-SJW's who already operate Facebook, and arguably far worse, given the purpose of the UK government is increasingly the top-down imposition of "intersectionality" via police state.

Given the slants decision re-affirming the first amendment 8:0 a US government regulatory takeover would at least give the average person legal redress against a government-regulated facebook. This, of course, does not preclude further algorithmic manipulation using the unaccountable and vast resources of the national intel groups.

I'd much rather have the lighter touch of simply removing CDA-230 and an explicit legislative repudiation of NYT V Sullivan in the face of increasingly rampant and defamatory "fake news".

Blogger Jeremy Daw February 18, 2019 5:34 AM  

And the UK remaining in the EU. In fact, it might yet kill off the EU proper. There's a virtual media silence on the gilets jeunes protests (and injuries) on this side of the Channel, but information is getting through on social media. And people I would otherwise describe as "normies" are noticing.

Blogger Balkan Yankee February 18, 2019 5:39 AM  

Ma Bell? That's a stretch. I remember when Ma Bell used to charge long distance rates for calls to neighboring cities in the same county.

But that doesn't make Zuckerberg and crew any less the data rapists than they truly are.

Blogger The Cooler February 18, 2019 6:00 AM  

It's time for the national governments around the world to crack the whip and take the international digital gangsters firmly in hand by turning them into utilities.

SOCIALIST!11!!!1!!1!

I brought this up here some years ago and got virtually lambasted by the local commentariat. Hopefully you can get some traction because if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it's probably a utility.

Blogger Primus Pilus February 18, 2019 6:21 AM  

Seems to me that "democracy", or, at least, the universal franchise variant, has already thoroughly discredited itself.

Blogger JovianStorm February 18, 2019 6:23 AM  

The US and UK governments make Facebook look like Boy Scouts.. So I'm wondering if this is just bluster for optics while money is transferred to license this surveillance expertise on behalf of the Deep State?

Blogger damaris.tighe February 18, 2019 6:25 AM  

The more private litigation and government investigation of social media the better.The Indigogo arbitration and Jared Taylor's matter are great examples for others.

"Youtuberlaw" has an interesting application for a US anti-trust review of Paypal's actions bringing down Patreon-alternative Subscribestar.

Anonymous Anonymous February 18, 2019 6:36 AM  

It’s difficult to see how the reputation of democracy could be harmed in any greater degree than it has been by the behavior of the democracies.

BTW, Russia is a democracy, so the reflexive “Muh Russia!” insertion into this story is doubly dubious.

Having said that, I’ve long believed that “common carrier” status should be applied to operations like google and facebook, with the appropriate restrictions on their ability to refuse service.

Blogger Unknown February 18, 2019 6:55 AM  

You're all missing the point. It's not about muh free speech, that ship has sailed, it's about who gets to control these platforms and under what conditions.

Blogger Rocklea Marina February 18, 2019 7:00 AM  

I don't know what the answer is, but open, virtually free communication, appears to be as detrimental to the state as it is to the nation. Maybe paywalled zones with regulatory restrictions on advertising and a preference for local goods and services.

Blogger McChuck February 18, 2019 7:02 AM  

Screw the British Parliament. The last time I checked, Menlo Park, Commiepornia wasn't in England.

I have no love for FaceBorg, but this "extraterritorial jurisdiction" crap has got to go.

Blogger JAG February 18, 2019 7:09 AM  

The government's duty, at least by theory, is to safeguard the citizens from enemies foreign and domestic. Regulation and breaking up of monopolies are ways of dealing with corporations that have become domestic enemies. Do it.

Blogger JACIII February 18, 2019 7:10 AM  

McChuck wrote:Screw the British Parliament. The last time I checked, Menlo Park, Commiepornia wasn't in England.

I have no love for FaceBorg, but this "extraterritorial jurisdiction" crap has got to go.



Yep. Richest guy on the planet doesn't bother to visit Maine either, we don't hear them whining.

Blogger VD February 18, 2019 7:15 AM  

The last time I checked, Menlo Park, Commiepornia wasn't in England.

The last time I checked, corporations which wish to operate in a foreign land are required to abide by the laws of that land. Facebook is absolutely free to not operate in the UK. The point is that it desperately wants to be able to do so.

Blogger peacefulposter February 18, 2019 7:47 AM  

Immigration remains the #1 issue of our time but Big Tech regulation is rapidly rising in the standings.

Blogger Damelon Brinn February 18, 2019 7:52 AM  

They are really pissed off social media killed the Clinton presidency, aren't they?

That was a one-time malfunction that they won't allow to happen again. They've spent the two years since Trump's victory tightening the screws on social media, practicing and establishing the precedent for quick squelching of dissenting speech.

It's not government versus mom-and-pop business. It's real-world government versus cyberspace government. The Big Data companies want to be legislator, lawman, and judge of your online behavior, unchecked by anything like a bill of rights.

Blogger LZ February 18, 2019 7:56 AM  

Turn social media into the white and yellow pages.

Blogger Rhys February 18, 2019 8:04 AM  

Of course Russia is the bogey of choice. No self-respecting westerner could reasonable fear the corporations themselves! Especially not when it's sociohomo corporations.

Blogger Stilicho February 18, 2019 8:11 AM  

Amusing that the "Russia Russia Russia!" hoax is being used to attack some of the hoax's biggest supporters among social media companies. Is there nothing it can't do?

Blogger Avalanche February 18, 2019 8:11 AM  

@19 "establishing the precedent for quick squelching of dissenting speech."

Anyone still hearing much of "learn to code" online anymore?! That jibe disappeared in less than a week. Honing, refining, practicing, excelling. Guess they're reading Sun Tzu also?

Blogger nswhorse February 18, 2019 8:40 AM  

While I don't trust the evil governments of most countries to actually do anything in the interests of their people, at least there must be recognition the likes of bookface are not by any sane definition private companies. As I understand it, nothing in Silicon Valley is truly private. It is all funded by seed money from the CIA, the NSA, the DoD, and other arms of the US (deep) State. There is 0% chance that money doesn't come with strings attached. They are essentially undeclared public-private partnerships. Such beasts are insulated from market forces, so the typical libertarian objections aren't relevant anyway. Besides, they are all obviously and openly working to spread evil, and doing so with a self-righteousness that is impervious to reason or complaint. Smash them good and hard.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 18, 2019 8:48 AM  

Calls on the British government to establish an independent investigation into “foreign influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation and the sharing of data” in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 EU referendum and the 2017 general election.

The only thing that matters in this laundry list of "sins" is the "sharing of data."

Because do we honestly think, for example, that a welder in Bournemouth one day went to his Facebook feed a staunch Remainer and then after a few posts, said to himself, "I say!! What was I thinking?? I will become of Brexiteer now!!!"

It strains credulity.

The big issue with Facebook or Google, aside from legitimate privacy concerns, is not the delivery of misinformation -- we need to trust the people to sort the wheat from the chaff -- but the censorship of views that don't comport with the corporate SJW ethos,

So, yeah, make em utilities. Break 'em up.

They are monopolies of the worst sort, and should be treated as such.

Blogger Seeingsights February 18, 2019 9:19 AM  

Also they are pissed because social media contributed ton Brexit. In the months leading up to the Brexit vote, I was search for pro Brexit videos and YouTube, owned by Google, suggested interesting pro Brexit stuff to me. I was pleasantly surprised. I thought at the time that maybe Google had an ax to grind against the EU. Now I think the globalists got careless. Google didn't tweak their algorithms on this issue.

Blogger Seeingsights February 18, 2019 9:29 AM  

On a related note, I contacted a Right-of-Center organization because I'm contemplating suing Chase for breach of fiduciary duty. I own Chase stock. I recently found out that a Trump supporter who broke no law had his bank account closed by Chase. I heard that something similar happened to a Proud Boy member who banked with Chase. My point is that Chase may not forgo legal profit because of their responsibilities to shareholders.
I'm looking forward to a reply from the litigators. I'd like see myself creating celebrated case law. I won't to defeat censorship by Big social media and the Big banks.

Blogger Seeingsights February 18, 2019 9:31 AM  

Correction: I meant to say I want to defeat censorship by Big social media and the big banks.

Blogger maniacprovost February 18, 2019 9:35 AM  

The "rule of law" is equally as effective as a bright line, black and white comment policy. We need to take Vox's moderation approach: don't create statutory regulations for social media. Just single out Facebook and go after them. Make Twitter fire their SJWs.

Regulations are bad, but war against commies is necessary.

Blogger Seeingsights February 18, 2019 9:35 AM  

@KP
Social media has influence. Even marginal influence can be enough.
Consider this thought experiment: suppose in the run up to the Brexit vote, there was no pro Brexit messages on social media. I submit that Brexit would have gotten less votes.

Blogger Jack Amok February 18, 2019 11:20 AM  

Amusing that the "Russia Russia Russia!" hoax is being used to attack some of the hoax's biggest supporters among social media companies. Is there nothing it can't do?

Liberals these days seem to always launch their torpedoes with the rudders jammed hard to port.

Blogger DonReynolds February 18, 2019 11:22 AM  

Hooray. I have been saying it for years and still agree. Social media is as much a public service as telephone service ever was. If private telephone landlines were ever important and worthy of regulation as a public utility, so too is Facebook and Twitter and Google. While only the latter has their own "Western Electric" equipment division, they should all be subject to legal obligations to serve the public interest, no differently than a FCC license to broadcast television and radio. They should not be able to deny the service based on broad or narrow discrimination against political viewpoint, party affiliation, race, gender, or national origin. At the same time, no one should abuse the service, nor should it be the tool of foreign intelligence services in disinformation campaigns, nor copyright infringement, nor computer viruses, nor hacking hazards.

Blogger Jack Amok February 18, 2019 11:25 AM  

suppose in the run up to the Brexit vote, there was no pro Brexit messages on social media. I submit that Brexit would have gotten less votes.

Yep, social media posts are the political yard signs of the 21st century - meant to convince people that a candidate or position have more support than they really do. Or - by their absence - that the person/position has less support than it really does.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 18, 2019 11:30 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger thechortling February 18, 2019 11:31 AM  

there's no such thing as a free lunch.

The Utopian Digitalists are playing on people's inability to see that they've given away their privacy for what appears to be a free lunch (free email, free chat, free catlady picture posting, free live streaming... maybe even free blogging factors into that equation)

They've sold their birthright for an ephemeral bowl of stew. Future generations will pay -- and maybe even this one will pay if enough of the non-thinking population surrender their DNA to these monsters. Of course, the State already co-opts people to gather DNA on their behalf to capture suspects. Maybe it's gone too far already and Big Brother is no longer avoidable, it's a matter of determining how to blunt BBs impact on one's life.

Building independent platforms may be the best outlet for that blunting (realizing even they could eventually be co-opted by the likes of the utterly criminal NSA and equivalent State operators in other countries).

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia February 18, 2019 11:37 AM  

seeingsights wrote:@KP

Social media has influence. Even marginal influence can be enough.

Consider this thought experiment: suppose in the run up to the Brexit vote, there was no pro Brexit messages on social media. I submit that Brexit would have gotten less votes.


I don't think we disagree here.

We should have no problem with an intellectual free for all on the internet, with a set of light touch standards -- for example, no pederasty, or calling the wife of a public figure -- e.g., Spacebunny -- vile and contemptible names.

The problem with the Social Media giants is that they censor arguments. You can bet they would have loved to ban Nigel Farage, JacobR ees Mogg and other Brexiteers -- indeed, the GE himself -- if they could get away with it.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 18, 2019 11:58 AM  

The final report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee’s 18-month investigation into disinformation and fake news accused Facebook of purposefully obstructing its inquiry and failing to tackle attempts by Russia to manipulate elections.

Just to keep track -- the media narrative starting with "hacking," then progressed to "meddling," then to the even more vague term "collusion."

Now we see the Giardian deploying "manipulate" as the favored term. Is this an officially-mandated shift in the approved "magic word?" Or just routine A/B testing?

Either way, the use of "manipulate" evokes images of a vast Russian conspiracy hiding in the shadows, co-opting non-Russian front men to act as mere puppets of their Russian masters behind the scenes -- a classic anti-Russian canard, really. Very problematic.

Blogger Duh-ave February 18, 2019 12:00 PM  

Back when regulated land line phones were dominate, no one lost their connection unless they broke a law. That kind of regulation would be a plus. Even putting a trap on your phone to stop harassment from psychos took more effort than was practical. Regulation involving an FCC license would be a nightmare as whoever is in power could cancel access on a whim as FDR threatened to do way back when radio shows didn't agree with him.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 18, 2019 12:27 PM  

@38
Regulation involving an FCC license would be a nightmare as whoever is in power could cancel access on a whim as FDR threatened to do way back when radio shows didn't agree with him.

He didn't just "threaten." He banned Father Coughlin from the airwaves -- then revoked his mailing "privileges."

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 18, 2019 12:32 PM  

A decent (non-technical) illustration of the pervasiveness and market power of the Big 5 tech companies in modern life:

https://gizmodo.com/life-without-the-tech-giants-1830258056

Reporter Kashmir Hill spent six weeks blocking Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple from getting her money, data, and attention, using a custom-built VPN.

I would try to block a tech giant each week, to tell the tale of life without it. At the end of those five weeks, I’d try to block all of them at once

OK, Google, Microsoft and/ or Apple -- but Amazon? How hard can it be to go a couple of weeks without ordering stuff online from them? But it's a lot more than that. Tech types knew this already, but a huge chunk of the internet runs on Amazon Web Services -- it's where most of their profits come from. Coincidentally, Amazon also runs the CIA'S cloud data system. Google and Microsoft also host millions of websites, of course -- but not as many as Amazon.

To keep my devices from talking to the big five’s servers, and vice versa, Dhruv built a virtual private network, or VPN, for me, through which I sent all my internet traffic. He then used the VPN to block my devices from being able to use the IP addresses owned by Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and/or Apple, depending on the week.

Final week:

https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-the-big-five-tech-giants-from-my-life-it-was-hel-1831304194

No smartphone (Google's Android and iOS are the only real options), no mapping, Linux laptop, much of the interwebz blocked, etc.

An interesting observation here:

One night, I run into Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, who is delighted to hear about the block. “It’s hard to get away from technology,” he says. “A friend was just telling me about trying to get a TV that wasn’t smart and didn’t have a microphone. It was impossible.

See also "Vault 7 Samsung smart TV hack."

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 18, 2019 1:42 PM  

The left is incapable of any kind of accord because they have lost their minds.

Blogger Lance E February 18, 2019 2:07 PM  

Primus Pilus wrote:Seems to me that "democracy", or, at least, the universal franchise variant, has already thoroughly discredited itself.

That was almost my immediate thought, reading the article snippet.

So, to summarize: Russia does democracy like the early Roman empire did democracy, and by not sucking too badly at it, their government is "discrediting" democracy in the west and putting it "at risk". And this is a bad thing because...?

It's like the dude at work who tells you to "stop working so hard, you're making the rest of us look bad!"

If the Russian government really is going to war with democracy, then I'm rooting for Russia. Of course, we all know that's complete hogwash and they're actually in cold-war with the western elites, most of whom are the ones who actually engaged in "influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation, and sharing of data", not just in the west but in almost every country globally.

The logic of the elites is pretty funny when you put it all together:
- Influencing elections is completely OK as long as it's not by a foreign power.
- Borders are immoral. Those people over there are exactly like us, and they should be able to come here and vote!
- But those people over there also shouldn't be allowed to influence our elections in any way!

I know it's a pointless exercise to logically analyze rhetoric, and that the progs who write this tripe are actually following a completely different unspoken set of principles, but it doesn't lessen the irony for me.

Blogger lowercaseb February 18, 2019 2:20 PM  

@39 That was an eye-opening story to look up...

Blogger eclecticme February 18, 2019 3:04 PM  

Ecologists bemoan 'mono-culture.' Facebook et al. are just one example of a global mono-culture.

Facebook just assumes it has the right to do whatever they want all over the world and some countries disagree. I enjoy seeing FB hit speed bumps at national borders.

I enjoy seeing anti-trust law being enforced at least somewhere in the world, if not the US. Apparently FB has not or cannot make campaign contributions sufficient to buy off the UK and EU as they have the US congress.

Blogger eclecticme February 18, 2019 3:11 PM  

@8. Primus Pilus February 18, 2019 6:21 AM
Seems to me that "democracy", or, at least, the universal franchise variant, has already thoroughly discredited itself.


I would imagine the Chinese are using the US Rep. AOC as a prime example. Her air head pronouncements and plan on green energy are priceless.

Someone said that China is a democracy where only 10% of people, the CP, get to vote.

Blogger Student in Blue February 18, 2019 3:18 PM  

Wait a minute.

Facebook deliberately broke privacy and competition law and should urgently be subject to statutory regulation

They broke a law. Why in the world do they need more laws if the previous ones aren't being enforced?

Rhetorical question, of course.

Blogger Alphaeus February 18, 2019 3:55 PM  

"As an ex-libertarian, I am instinctively hostile to government regulation."

This statement strikes me as an odd play on the words I tell people: "As an ultra-orthodox fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I am against organized religion."

I'd say that you are not an ex-libertarian, but rather you are disappointed in and disaffected and alienated from the "organized Libertarians." Non? Because I feel the same way about having once called my self a "libertarian."

Blogger Alphaeus February 18, 2019 3:59 PM  

"How can you crush private monopolies and oligopolies without regulation? Rent seekers like Facebook should get wrecked."

The "regulation" of suing their pants off for false advertising and making false statements generally in order to promote the use of their "product" would be plenty. Just one class action law suit would annihilate them out of existence. There is no need, in this case, to erect any complicated apparatus of oversight. Their fraud and malfeasance is plain for all the world to see.

At least as far as Farcebook and Twitstorm are concerned. Google might be a tougher nut to crack.

Blogger Haxo Angmark February 18, 2019 4:37 PM  

we have no dog in this fight. Essentially

(((Soros))), and now (((Rothschild))) ("the British government")

have piled on (((Zuckerbook))) because it's insufficiently globohomo.

may (((they))) all eat each other alive.

Blogger bobby February 18, 2019 4:37 PM  

We need to pick one of these two options:

1. FB/TW/whoever are common carriers. They do not select among their users messages, they do not delete, they do not meddle, they simply provide a path for people to transmit whatever message they choose. In return, FB/etc are shielded from legal liability for those messages.

2. FB/etc pick and choose what messages they pass along. They ban messages as they see fit. In return, they assume legal liability for those messages, because they are the editors.

As to privacy concerns, it's no longer a secret that FB/etc all use your private information as their product-for-sale. If you decide to participate, you do so knowingly and willingly.

There should be no talk of government regulation beyond removing their shields. Imagine that the government doing the regulating is run by Hillary or Kamela or Ms. May. We'd have mandatory keyboards and cameras turned on 24/7 in all of our homes within a decade.

Blogger Lance E February 18, 2019 5:08 PM  

@bobby, you forgot option 3) FB/etc pay protection money to the Diversity Industry who work tirelessly to promote selective censorship, bury legitimate complaints and attack enemies through the media and courts.

This may not strike you as a good option, but it's working for the actors involved, including the highly-converged DoJ, and they're going to need a very strong incentive to change it.

My gripes with President Trump aside, I suspect one of the reasons he hasn't tried to bring the hammer down and introduce regulation on this front is that such regulation would be toothless without the power to enforce. And with the DoJ still whining about Muh Russia, it's obvious that enforcement against big tech would be either nonexistent or completely targeted against political dissidents.

It's great that there is an army of people calling for regulation of big tech, but I think what we actually need is an army of people able and willing to be the regulators and enforcers. The ADLSPLCACLU are the left's enforcers; who will be the right's?

Blogger Rule of Wrist February 18, 2019 6:42 PM  

I don't like the idea of Facebook/twitter/big-social-whatever becoming utilities. What is necessary about their function compared to traditional utilities like the power or gas companies? If anything, the government should heed the studies comparing the harm of social media use with the harm of drug use and break them up entirely as harmful to the public good. (It's science!) Forever disallow social media's business model of offering the userbase's data as a product to be bought and sold in exchange for "free" access.

If you want to regulate something as utilities, how about online credit processing companies like Paypal? That's where it makes sense for the government to intervene and not allow companies to blacklist people for political reasons, and these companies are far more important going forward compared to Facebook et al.

If we had a serious country, the people would be protected from all of the various predatory monopolies that have been allowed to flourish unchecked for the last 30-50 years.

Blogger Unknownsailor February 18, 2019 7:47 PM  

@40

I have found that dumb TVs still exist, but not in 4K, and not in any size bigger than maybe fifty inch. You can, however, get a 49" 1080p dumb TV still: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LW4G71Y

I've been looking for a dumb 4K tv in about 55 inch for years now, and haven't seen anyone offer such a product.

--Unknownsailor--

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 18, 2019 9:19 PM  

@44
I enjoy seeing anti-trust law being enforced at least somewhere in the world, if not the US. Apparently FB has not or cannot make campaign contributions sufficient to buy off the UK and EU as they have the US congress.

There's actually a coherent economic/ legal theory behind decreased antitrust enforcement in the US over the past 40-50 years or so. That doesn't mean that the Chicago School approach represents the best model to work from -- it fails to incorporate some of the harms of excessive market concentration -- but it's more than just the series of unprincipled exceptions that it sometimes appears to be.

This is a good -- if long -- discussion of how antitrust law has changed over the past 50 years or so, and how these changes enabled the tech giants' business model. It looks at Amazon in particular, but the model is generalizable to the rest of the Big 5, with the possible exception of Apple. Despite appearing in a law journal, it's written in pretty straightforward English. It concludes that we should either:

1. Regulate these companies as common carriers (as @50 suggested) or

2. Return to an antitrust approach that takes market structure into consideration, not just price theory.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts