Google’s Eric Schmidt...

>Google’s Eric Schmidt, Facebooks’ Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos are now under attack for their brazen efforts to manipulate public discourse and will have their companies nationalized and broken up.

Your thoughts Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yes yes yes very evil companies need to be kept in check

Why amazon

The fire rises

>Gorilla Man links Shitfeed post on Twatter

Prepare for nothing to happen

i'm all for anything that fucks over google

basically, a case of Zionists wanting to regulate Marxists

Who will win?

About time. Long overdue.

If I remember right, been killing mom and pop shops.

Online supermarket with a physical grocery store. If your account gets suspended, you can't buy groceries there anymore, which could be considered a way to skirt discrimination laws.

good, fuck those fucking websites that got so big they think they have say on our lives.

It's not over until the guarantee of 1A is extended to apply to Google, Amazon and Facebook.

Don't give me any of that hippie free market crap either.

I mean fuck Google, but regulating a private company is horrendous government over reach

>Politicians on both side should be worried
Nigga they have the politicians in their pocket.

But user, if everything was just a little more free and a little more open, all of society's problems would be solved.

Jews making shekels and controlling public discourse at the same time? Tell me a new one, OP.

About fucking time.

Gas the (((rich))), class war now.

finally.
Every company that hold more than 70% of a market (global or local) should be broken up.
Unregulated capitalism automatically leads to monopoles because this maximizes profits.
It is time for the invisible hand to pimpslap the crap out of those companies.

Large social media platforms have a de-facto monopoly on freedom of expression. They should be forcefully regulated to take a neutral stance towards the contend they host and harshly sanctioned when they engage in any form of censorship.
"Muh free market will fix it" memers can go fuck themselves.

They get government subsidy so fuck em. If it was a free market I would be against it, but until then we need to make sure bad actors who have no resistance from the market are taken down.

Not if it's a monopoly, which all three are

sounds good but will literally never happen. The US gov is owned and run by private interest groups now, and have been for at least 30 years.

I think the bigger problem is that some companies, social media certainly, tend to form natural monopolies.

Then you have examples of Amazon using their market power to suppress third-party sellers in favor of their own products and various other disturbing tatics.

Beyond that, I hate the people who run these companies and their agenda is in favor of globalism and white genocide, so I want them to suffer.

If they don't it means the current internet power structure would over-take the 1st world governments.

Owned by Jeff Bezos who owns Washington Post (mouthpiece of the CIA) , hosts CIA servers, received 600 million from the CIA, owns whole foods, ran mom and pops and box stores out of business. Hates Donald Trump because Trump wants to break him up. He's one of the big guys behind the protests with Soros.

Fucking this. The talking point that Google needs to be regulated has been pushed recently, but it's obviously just a short-sighted partisan push for power.

Give it time. We'll get a legit alternative to the services Google provides, but I'd rather not give the government power that it could oportunistically abuse later down the road.

Execute them for treason and confiscate it all.

All three are monopolies.
All three have huge power to influence - there needs to be great responsibility to match it.

Besides, "private company" excuse is bullshit when you counsider the context.

It is flatout clear that United States government has outsourced the freedom of speech forums and freedom of speech to private companies which they can control behind the scenes which can then control the forums and what is talked about.

>people who run these companies and their agenda is in favor of globalism and white genocide, so I want them to suffer.
You give them too much credit. I think they want to make as much profit as possible. Coincidentally at the moment this means (or at least, they think it means) pandering to the SJW.
If they were doing business under a Nazi regime, I bet they would not hesitate to pander to the natsocs.

>soviet-tier measures of regulations of business and nationalizations are based and red pilled, when a guy who calls himself patriot and has american flag near his avatar proposes it.
t. right swinger

Exactly. I think we need to break up Alphabet, not just Google. Eric Schmidt should, Sergey Brin, Ray Kurzweil, and their Muslim dude need to be hung til their necks snap.

When Jews fight, goys loose.

It's not a natural monopoly.

medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

>We are heading towards cyberpunk dystopia complete with MegaCorps
Yes!

>You give them too much credit. I think they want to make as much profit as possible.

Consider, though, how Google has been behaving as of late.

I think it's reached the point where the social justice college graduates have come to make up enough of the major corporate power structure that they can push the company to take unprofitable but anti-white actions.

Everytime you order from Amazon tax payers subsidizes them 1.50 .
The company retail operations are not profitable, aws is but they also illegally data mine hosted information

Facebook is also sending bots to people that pose as your friends, they actually talk people into defriending real friends over politics. So in the end you are just talking to bots that sway your opinions. Total virtual reality.

snowballing towards a corporation that controls your whole life

>I'd rather not give the government power

Absolutely. Google already knows everything about you. Facebook knows everything about you.
The government already has their dossiers on you, at least now they have to "request" information on certain individuals to complete a profile, don't give them everything.

the problem is that Google and Facebook are as big as they are because the deep state supports and wants them to be. Amazon there's still a chance to break up but the longer it takes to even recognize the threat the less likely it's going to become, especially with Amazon placing so many listening devices in peoples homes.

thwn pay for your own Youtube.
Monopolies are a distortion of the Free Market amd only exist becauae of interfefence. The Freeer the Market the freeer the peoplr

currently, and thats a big problem, it is not yet unprofitable.
Once they see that it really cuts into their profits (and more than just a rounding error) then you bet that either the top-management OR the shareholders are going to crack down on the SJW nonsense

Once you stop thinking these as private companies that are genuine private companies, and understand that for example, based on what we currently know of Google it is essentially in all intents and purposes extension of MIC - they are not private companies in their true nature and just abuse the actual philosophy of private companies in order to coerce the freedom of speech and its forums.

Just make them uphold 1A.

>Libtards: "We need to regulate big business and companies for the greater good of society!"

>Gov: "Alright we'll start with Facebook, Google and Amazon."

>Libtards: "I ONLY MEANT COMPANIES THAT SUPPORT MY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND PUNISH THOSE I DISAGREE WITH NO WAIT STOP REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

It's easy declare social media platforms common carriers.

Like phone companies they are then forbidden to discriminate against any data that travels through their network

What makes you retards think handing these companies over to the direct control of bureaucrats under the Marxist ZOG will yield any better results
Their practices will only become more subversive and their power will only grow with the massive force of the state behind them
Think for two fucking seconds. When's the last time your government did something for your benefit?

>Your thoughts Sup Forums?

It's the paradox of how society works. We don't live in pure capitalism and so the constant appeals to the free market and market forces correcting these near monopolies are just dreaming.

Power has been concentrating relentlessly for a century and change. When I grew up there were a multitude of competing entertainment and news companies, now the US has 6. And two of them want to merge.

>Give it time. We'll get a legit alternative to the services Google provides

No, you won't. There aren't new competitors lining up because the investment to even compete with Google is so massive nobody could invest it just hoping people will switch. This is the power of being installed and cemented in position in a market, and why there's always a rush to be first. The winner gets more money to stifle competition and lobby to erect barriers to entry until you're virtually unassailable.

The idea of competition is a fig leaf for oligarchies. The truth is we don't have definite solutions. Even forcibly breaking up companies is a stalling measure at most.

Regulating them as utilities sort of works. But it's going to introduce socialized costs and government inefficiency over time.

There are no perfect solutions because the only perfect economic models exist only as wank fantasies.

>it's obviously just a short-sighted
Market fundamentalism is the penultimate of short-sighted and non-functioning idiocy.

>We'll get a legit alternative to the services Google provides
There already are but perfect competition doesn't exist, nor will it ever exist in any setting, anywhere.

what the hell is with this influx of people who type like retards on Sup Forums lately? With random misplaced letters and shit? Are you bots or what?

>and will have their companies nationalized and broken up.
lol by who

>Amazon ran mom and pop shops and box stores out of business
By providing a better business

>influx of people who type like retards on Sup Forums lately

Here's the answer and a nice reaction pic for you.

>Accept government money
>Accept government protections
>Acquire government backed monopoly
>Government take over is suddenly a line too far

Nigger they set themselves up for this.

Well you pretty much fucking nailed it. Good job

And then they started acting like they ran the country. Country reacts. Stops using product. Free market works.

Its your fault if you use their services. The only reason goolag as a private company can be broken up is being a monopoly and influencing the govt.

excellent, good goy

And Trump is now talking to Democrats! Time for Antitrust, and Infrastructure.

McConnell can go suck Ryan's cock.

Government take over is probably what they were gunning for the whole time.
To those of you who think this will stick it to them, consider they STILL have all their money and influence and the notion that any legislation like this will work against them is laughably naive.
John D. Rockefeller didn't become the richest man in the world until AFTER the breakup of his monopoly. It made him RICHER than he otherwise could have gotten.

And P.S. making the mistake of corporate welfare DOES NOT justify the creation of an Orwellian state-run umbrella corporation.

We didn't tell them to make a deal with the CIA for our data.

Read their TOS. Like I said, your fault.

Bitch McConnell definitely seems like a bottom.

Might this be the wrong solution? Under ideal circumstances it may still negatively stunt the growth of alternatives.Having the government meddle could also have unintended Consequences. Consider instead forking google services and/or promoting them. POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO KEEP YOU ON THEIR KOSHER PLATFORM. The Ideal solution is to build our own.

>The winner gets more money to stifle competition and lobby to erect barriers to entry until you're virtually unassailable.

This. Once you're Jewoogle, you can even just buy out a lot of the possible competition.

>But it's going to introduce socialized costs and government inefficiency over time.

I'm actually kind of fine with that; we've got enough massive productively that the cost of exchanging some of that in exchange for less effective centralization of power seems pretty low.

>Amazon is in bed with the evil government
>To solve this, we should hand all their resources over to the government
Are you people braindead or something?

>Having the government meddle could also have unintended Consequences

Part of the problem is that these organisations are already in bed with various governments.

There are issues with it being private businesses. But they are monopolies that should have never gotten so big. I don't think they should be nationalized as utilities since they are not things needed to improve survival like water or electricity/heat. As well, i do not want the government to do so due to the implications. Too much power, and sets forth that if any business gets too big, it can get taken too.
Force them to split up into 4+ companies each since they are monopolies. Problems solved.

>Google search engine is good, because it was invented to index the personal information of everyone.

Don't make government take over.
Just make them follow the first amendment in their forums they offer.

>private
We really need to redefine that term
Google and Facebook are essentially owned by certain factions within global politics.
They're not private in the way the cake store refusing to serve gays is private.

>Market fundamentalism is the penultimate of short-sighted and non-functioning idiocy.
>There already are but perfect competition doesn't exist, nor will it ever exist in any setting, anywhere.
You seem so sure of yourself that you're willing to give up pieces of your liberty for that idea. Nobody is making you use Google, and the only people not suspicious of the power they hold are partisan hacks on one side of the political spectrum.

I don't understand how breaking up their "monopoly" actually helps anyone. We can
already upload videos to other sites, email services exist outside of Google, search engines exist outside of Google -- is their status as monopoly based purely on the fact they they're convenient? Are you seriously telling me that despite the fact that you do, in fact, have options, you choose to use Google because the government isn't forcing you not to? Seriously?

It already is. Google in all but on paper is part of government, but without the "bad sides" to them, such as following the 1A.

>Nationalizing companies

No thanks.

Nationalizing their assets will only make the problems with corporatism exponentially worse.

This.

Make them follow the 1A.

Google's case is easy, force them to open source their search engine. The Gov set's a really low royalty say $10 per month. Then we just setup our own Sup Forums search engine using it.

Facebook is easy too, no delete or censorship without court order. No more ranking except sorted by latest post.

You think the government will be any different? When has the Constitution gotten in the way of the Marxist agenda?
If you think anything contrary to the best interest of the government and their uber wealthy handlers is gonna happen, you got another thing coming.

We don't need to nationalise them, we just need to get them out of bed with the government and start imposing proper, meaningful legislation on personal privacy on them.

Lets be honest here, you only want the companies that champion progressive goals to be broken up. You don't give a shit about all the the other ones that fuck you over already because you are used to it.

Doesn't really matter though, because none of those have a monopoly on anything, they are just popular.

...

wtf I love buzzfeed now

>mom and pop shops.
who the fuck wants to go to a god damn pop & pop shop stfu, get back in your time machine & fly off to reddit

they are pretty much monopolies in their respective markets. that is the problem. it's okay if they think they should manipulate public discourse but they should not be big enough to succeed at it.

>You seem so sure of yourself
Market fundamentalism is predicated on nonsensical drivel.

>willing to give up pieces of your liberty
None is given up whatsoever.

>Nobody is making you use Google
Once again, perfect competition doesn't exist for anything, anywhere. Only monopolistic competition exists and, in Alphabet's case, also a network effect.

>I don't understand how breaking up their "monopoly" actually helps anyone
The topic of the thread is regulating them like a utility and forcing them to adhere to the 1st amendment.

>you choose to use Google
I never said I did. I only use Youtube because, once again, perfect competition doesn't exist and youtube is a monopolictically competitive firm with an immense network effect.

Another one bites the dust. Dismantling social marxism one shitty jew at a time.

Most of these large websites (Amazon, Google, eBay, Facebook, Twitter...) should be either merged with the Government or taken over by the Government when they get to a certain level of users, it's a matter of public safety also, we need the Feds running most of these large websites, just like we have the Feds running Disaster Preparation (FEMA).

If AT&T listened to your conversation and disconnected it when you said something they didn't like, they would violate their common carrier status. The same applies to Google, Facebook and Twitter. They should have their common carrier status revoked, making them responsible for all traffic on their sites.

Following 1A at least guarantees something.
Now there's nothing.
Huge power.
No responsibility.
Not good. Not good at all.

Govt. take over = too bad.
Now = too bad
Middle = 1A following.

As for Amazon, the commerce platform should be nationalized. The other parts are dealt with on a case by case basis.

Media ownership should be limited to a very small percentage per person, with no proxy ownership allowed. Only direct personal ownership.

Checked, and very good post

...

>buzzfeed
Yeah okay.

Muh net neutrality

You're talking about the deep state. The elected government can still be blackmailed into doing the right thing on occasion. The fact that Trump is still active means there's very little cooperation between the two governments at the moment.

>i shouldn't have to bake a cake for gays! thats slavery! if its that bad the free market will fix it!
>>well i don't want to serve nazis
>wtf i hate the free market now! GOVERNMENT REGULATE THEM!!! MAKE THEM DO BUSINESS WITH ME!!!! ITS NOT FAIR!!!1

...

Europe regularly interferes when it comes to stuff like that and our worker's and consumer protection generally tends to be better than the one in the US.

I guess it's a question of what you value higher, entrepreneurs' and share holders' right to make the maximum amount of profit, or trying to keep social friction resulting from that under control.
That's not a value judgement by the way, both of them have ups and downs and you just need to decide what you prefer. I wouldn't object to some tighter regulations for companies that have such a dominant presence in crucial markets. Not like they sell products you could just cut out of your society without severe consequences.

LMAO
>mike cuckovich is taking down Google and Amazon

the cuckservalibertarian rears its head

>outblackmailing Google and Amazon
these companies already are more powerful than the government

Looks like a self-fuck situation. Not regulate and get censored. Regulate and get lefties liberal shit scum. Kill all people?