Why is the government going after Big Tech???

So the DOJ is preparing to go after Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon for antitrust, and the government wants to "break up" big tech.

I want to ask, what does this exactly accomplish? So Amazon needs to be punished and broken up for providing fast shipping to its customers and lower costs?

Imagine if the government ran an Amazon store! You would be lucky to receive your package in a month! Facebook ads are one of the greatest advertising tools for small and mid-size businesses. What does the government provide on a similar scale besides loans?

And what exactly is the point of a breakup? What would prevent Amazon AWS from becoming a monopoly or Instagram, Apple Store?

Lastly, we are in a tech war with China. China actually wants companies like their Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent to get more powerful. They actually like monopolies. So why on earth are we trying to handicap our best players when the Chinese government is doing the complete opposite?

Breaking up of big tech seems misguided and light on details.

Apple won't qualify, there is plenty of competition for their products.

Facebook, if they made themselves less useful to foreign governments for sinking campaign dollars, wouldn't be on this list either.

Google and Amazon, however, are good candidates for anti trust, unfortunately. Google wields more power over public perception and opinion than any other multiple sources combined, and they sell that power to the highest bidder. Amazon is using a reinvesting strategy to pay zero taxes, while under cutting prices and driving down labor costs using...unethical hiring and employment practices...to drive any and all competition out of business.

I’d say apple wouldnt apply but i still dont like them for jacking up the price and acting like all their products are precious diamonds.
Disney for example...... yes slap disney silly with antitrust.

bomberfox said:

I’d say apple wouldnt apply but i still dont like them for jacking up the price and acting like all their products are precious diamonds.
Disney for example...... yes slap disney silly with antitrust.

Click to expand...

Disney? Seriously?

Facebook and Google deserve a good slapdown. They are negligent with privacy data and they have issues with political bias...issues that need to be seriously addressed if they are to continue to be taken seriously as Big Tech titans.

First of all, it is not "big tech". Tech giants want you to think it's "tech".

It's "Big Advertising", powered by farming and selling your data at no cost to them, yet yielding them great profits.
They are "Big Algorithm" when you want to buy screened targets of possible voters for targeted advertising, one slant for group A, another angle for group B, and a more holistic approach for group C, all for the same candidate since the algorithm helps decided what person is most likely to be most positively affected by what pitch.
It is "Big Merchandising", where third party sellers agree to not sell their wares anywhere else at a lower price, denying the customer a competitive alternative.
It's "Big Tax Management", where you funnel all of your enormous profits back into acquisitions and expansion in such a way that you earn billions and pay a pittance in taxes, yet are creating social costs borne by the taxpayer.
It's "Big Acquisition" where the best hope an up and coming competitor has is to be bought rather than be tested in the market place.
It's "Big brother" by creating algorithms that decided the parameters of free speech, and since they own or control the relevant speech channels they become the deciders of who's voice is heard, and who's isn't.

This data is will find it's way into decisions made by others about you life. You are not a citizen, not a human. You are a data point that is for sale and you have no say in the matter.

This is not what freedom is about.

Allow me to add Amazon to the group that needs slapping. Their "listening" Alexa issue needs to be seriously addressed.

Bucky said:

So the DOJ is preparing to go after Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon for antitrust, and the government wants to "break up" big tech.

I want to ask, what does this exactly accomplish? So Amazon needs to be punished and broken up for providing fast shipping to its customers and lower costs?

Imagine if the government ran an Amazon store! You would be lucky to receive your package in a month! Facebook ads are one of the greatest advertising tools for small and mid-size businesses. What does the government provide on a similar scale besides loans?

And what exactly is the point of a breakup? What would prevent Amazon AWS from becoming a monopoly or Instagram, Apple Store?

Lastly, we are in a tech war with China. China actually wants companies like their Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent to get more powerful. They actually like monopolies. So why on earth are we trying to handicap our best players when the Chinese government is doing the complete opposite?

Breaking up of big tech seems misguided and light on details.

Click to expand...

Amazon is an absurdly massive monopoly for which one of their major sources of wealth is the federal government subsidizing every Amazon package by $1.43 each. Multiply that by billions. NO other company or business has the 1 and 2 day shipping rate Amazon does - having to pay 250% to 400% more.

Because of the marriage between Amazon and Google (80+% percent of internet traffic), no company can compete with advertising either. Google also is heavily subsidized by the government - and neither pay any taxes. Small businesses do.

Why do you think Amazon and Google are American companies? They are International companies.

joko104 said:

Amazon is an absurdly massive monopoly for which one of their major sources of wealth is the federal government subsidizing every Amazon package by $1.43 each. Multiply that by billions. NO other company or business has the 1 and 2 day shipping rate Amazon does - having to pay 250% to 400% more.

Because of the marriage between Amazon and Google (80+% percent of internet traffic), no company can compete with advertising either. Google also is heavily subsidized by the government - and neither pay any taxes. Small businesses do.

Why do you think Amazon and Google are American companies? They are International companies.

Click to expand...

As an investor who actually reads the details of shareholder statements, Amazon's major source of income is sale of cloud services and associated software. It's retail business bare breaks even. And its own retailing losses are covered by profits earned from carrying other smaller marketing companies. Reinvesting profits in the company for future growth and remuneration avoids taxation, but eventually the bill will become due. The US Postal Service is not underwritten by the US Government. No tax dollars go towards its operation. It is a self supporting quasi public service corporation forbidden by law from profits.

Considering that porn still accounts for at least 45% of internet traffic, unless new math has created a miracle, you've misinterpreted internet traffic for advertising. Amazon and Google account for 80% of internet advertising through their cloud services, not internet traffic. This still does not make them responsible for 80% of internet advertising, merely the transmission of internet advertising.

Monopolies are not unlawful in the US, nor anywhere else on this planet. However, use of monopolistic powers to thwart competition is a violation of anti trust laws.

Now, when examining the governmental reactions toward big tech, and I hate using this language, it is not an issue of monopolies that government fears, but a loss of controlling powers to forces of the marketplace government does not control. The FCC lobbying for the end of internet neutrality was the first salvo to bring technological freedoms under government controls. I am far more concerned with governmental intrusion into technological achievement and growth by a government mired in partisan back stabbing and quibbling than actual governance, especially by politicians who still can't program a VCR or use more than 5% of the software built into their cell phones. No one can govern when they don't understand what they intend to govern. How many members of the FCC can code? Here's the answer, none. How many congressional members can code? Here's the answer, 7. That's from their own surveys of congressional members, and only one senator had coding experience. Basic One in college 20 some odd years ago.

The chief antitrust prosecutor freely admitted this week he does not concern himself with monopolistic processes as a concern for protecting consumers from big tech pricing. His concerns are "misuse of power." Meaning, "who holds the reins." Do you really believe big tech is best governed by our government? Give that some thought before responding. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, didn't object to industry oversight, and neither do I, but I certainly don't trust government intrusion from people like Elizabeth Warren seeking hot button key words for votes. "Don't screw this up, girl."

OldFatGuy said:

As an investor who actually reads the details of shareholder statements, Amazon's major source of income is sale of cloud services and associated software. It's retail business bare breaks even. And its own retailing losses are covered by profits earned from carrying other smaller marketing companies. Reinvesting profits in the company for future growth and remuneration avoids taxation, but eventually the bill will become due. The US Postal Service is not underwritten by the US Government. No tax dollars go towards its operation. It is a self supporting quasi public service corporation forbidden by law from profits.

Considering that porn still accounts for at least 45% of internet traffic, unless new math has created a miracle, you've misinterpreted internet traffic for advertising. Amazon and Google account for 80% of internet advertising through their cloud services, not internet traffic. This still does not make them responsible for 80% of internet advertising, merely the transmission of internet advertising.

Monopolies are not unlawful in the US, nor anywhere else on this planet. However, use of monopolistic powers to thwart competition is a violation of anti trust laws.

Now, when examining the governmental reactions toward big tech, and I hate using this language, it is not an issue of monopolies that government fears, but a loss of controlling powers to forces of the marketplace government does not control. The FCC lobbying for the end of internet neutrality was the first salvo to bring technological freedoms under government controls. I am far more concerned with governmental intrusion into technological achievement and growth by a government mired in partisan back stabbing and quibbling than actual governance, especially by politicians who still can't program a VCR or use more than 5% of the software built into their cell phones. No one can govern when they don't understand what they intend to govern. How many members of the FCC can code? Here's the answer, none. How many congressional members can code? Here's the answer, 7. That's from their own surveys of congressional members, and only one senator had coding experience. Basic One in college 20 some odd years ago.

The chief antitrust prosecutor freely admitted this week he does not concern himself with monopolistic processes as a concern for protecting consumers from big tech pricing. His concerns are "misuse of power." Meaning, "who holds the reins." Do you really believe big tech is best governed by our government? Give that some thought before responding. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, didn't object to industry oversight, and neither do I, but I certainly don't trust government intrusion from people like Elizabeth Warren seeking hot button key words for votes. "Don't screw this up, girl."

Click to expand...

Why do some people think that lying is persuasive? There is no reason to go thru your message point by point since truth clearly is absolutely irrelevant in it with your post office comment, rather just tell what ever lies make the claim you want in your message:

American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every year
U.S. Post Office gets an $18 billion gift from taxpayers every year | Fortune

You statement that Amazon makes no money off of sales of it's products and that neither Amazon or Google make any money off internet advertising in your message is so radically - absurdly - false there is no rational discussion possible.

The United States Postal Service is deep in the red, with a dwindling list of options available to stop the bleeding. USPS officials and Congress have continually neglected to employ sound financial management, which has resulted in $15 billion in debt and more than $100 billion in unfunded liabilities for the Postal Service. Despite inept leadership, anyone bringing attention to these issues is bound to be repeatedly attacked as a corporate shill trying to harm the USPS.

hese crony carve-outs are just one of many issues plaguing Postal Service finances. But citizens should be especially leery of special arrangements that tilt the playing field in favor of a massive corporate leviathan that has been squeezing out market competition on every level imaginable.

Special arrangements created by the Postal Service ensure that Amazon will get a much larger piece of the action than competing e-commerce companies. A deal carved out in 2013, for instance, commits the Postal Service to delivering Amazon packages on Sundays. This has undoubtedly been a major boon to the e-commerce giant’s bottom line, making two-day Prime delivery a possibility even on weekends. But competitors like Walmart can’t tap into this same advantage, and must wait until the holiday season to take advantage of Sunday delivery by the Postal Service.

In fact, an April 2017 Citigroup analysis (which you can read here) found that each package delivered via USPS receives a $1.46 subsidy due to these bizarre price and cost calculations.

The Postal Service & Amazon: Crony Capitalism Delivered to Your Door | The American Conservative

Amazon in 2017 shipped over 6 billion packages. That means WE, the taxpayers gave Amazon over $8,000,000,000.oo just that year. Nearly half of Bezo's wealth directly came from the taxpayers via the government thru subsidizing Amazon's shipping. Shipping is one of the most significant expenses internet companies and merchants face. The government subsidizing Amazon to offer special and discount services to Amazon is not only illegal, it is grotesquely the very definition of an illegal monopoly.

If even WalMart can not have the same rates and fast shipping, what about Mom and Pop businesses? 1 day delivery (and never on Sunday) costs small businesses 500% or more than Amazon pays.

joko104 said:

Why do some people think that lying is persuasive? There is no reason to go thru your message point by point since truth clearly is absolutely irrelevant in it with your post office comment, rather just tell what ever lies make the claim you want in your message:

American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every year
U.S. Post Office gets an $18 billion gift from taxpayers every year | Fortune

You statement that Amazon makes no money off of sales of it's products and that neither Amazon or Google make any money off internet advertising in your message is so radically - absurdly - false there is no rational discussion possible.

Click to expand...

Tax breaks for a quasi public service company with service mandates from congress in exchange, is not a gift from tax payers, it is a gift to tax payers who use the services supplied. A very weak and long refuted argument resurrected for partisan political bickering.

Understanding how both Amazon and Google truly make their money could lead to realistic antitrust regulation for the digital age. But then you can lead a horse to water, and you can't make him drink. When a prosecuting attorney for an antitrust investigation brags that the investigation is not about protecting the consumer, how could you not understand the issue is really a power play?

KevinKohler said:

Apple won't qualify, there is plenty of competition for their products.

Facebook, if they made themselves less useful to foreign governments for sinking campaign dollars, wouldn't be on this list either.

Google and Amazon, however, are good candidates for anti trust, unfortunately. Google wields more power over public perception and opinion than any other multiple sources combined, and they sell that power to the highest bidder. Amazon is using a reinvesting strategy to pay zero taxes, while under cutting prices and driving down labor costs using...unethical hiring and employment practices...to drive any and all competition out of business.

Click to expand...

Apple may qualify as a technological monopoly, not unlike AT&T before it was broken up. Google is only popular because more people use it. They have no patents or trademarks that cause them to dominate a particular market. Which means that anyone can create a search engine in direct competition to Google, such as DuckDuckGo for example. When people realize that it is they who are empowering Google, Facebook, and Twitter and starting changing their behavior then Google, Facebook, and Twitter will no longer be an issue. It is already happening.

OldFatGuy said:

Tax breaks for a quasi public service company with service mandates from congress in exchange, is not a gift from tax payers, it is a gift to tax payers who use the services supplied. A very weak and long refuted argument resurrected for partisan political bickering.

Understanding how both Amazon and Google truly make their money could lead to realistic antitrust regulation for the digital age. But then you can lead a horse to water, and you can't make him drink. When a prosecuting attorney for an antitrust investigation brags that the investigation is not about protecting the consumer, how could you not understand the issue is really a power play?

Click to expand...

There is nothing "quasi" about the USPS. It is funded by taxpayer funds that were appropriated by Congress. The USPS does generate some revenue through the sale of stamps and other services, but not nearly enough to offset the cost of their operation. There is nothing "self-sufficient" about the USPS, and there never has been. The USPS exists because Congress has the constitutional authority "to establish post offices..." It is not a private organization, or a "quasi-" anything, it is entirely a federal government entity. Just like NASA, the CIA, and dozens of other alphabet agencies, they all fall under the "Independent Agency" label. Meaning they do not belong to a particular department. An "Independent Agency" is not independent of the government, just not part of any established department, like the Department of State, or the Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense, etc., etc.

Glitch said:

There is nothing "quasi" about the USPS. It is funded by taxpayer funds that were appropriated by Congress. The USPS does generate some revenue through the sale of stamps and other services, but not nearly enough to offset the cost of their operation. There is nothing "self-sufficient" about the USPS, and there never has been. The USPS exists because Congress has the constitutional authority "to establish post offices..." It is not a private organization, or a "quasi-" anything, it is entirely a federal government entity. Just like NASA, the CIA, and dozens of other alphabet agencies, they all fall under the "Independent Agency" label. Meaning they do not belong to a particular department. An "Independent Agency" is not independent of the government, just not part of any established department, like the Department of State, or the Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense, etc., etc.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should look up the charters that established and regulate the USPS.

OldFatGuy said:

Perhaps you should look up the charters that established and regulate the USPS.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The US Constitution and Congress established and regulate the USPS. The origins of the USPS goes back to the Continental Congress when on July 26, 1775, they appointed Benjamin Franklin the first Postmaster General. The first session of Congress created (or recreated) the USPS in 1789.

Glitch said:

What are you talking about? The US Constitution and Congress established and regulate the USPS. The origins of the USPS goes back to the Continental Congress when on July 26, 1775, they appointed Benjamin Franklin the first Postmaster General. The first session of Congress created (or recreated) the USPS in 1789.

Click to expand...

The Post Office is NOT private organization:

The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service is an eleven-seat board comparable to a board of directors of a private corporation, except in service of the American postal system. Nine members are appointed by the president of the United States, subject to confirmation by the Senate (and usually first deliberated in the Senate's Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs)[1]. The nine presidentially appointed governors choose the postmaster general, who also serves as a member of the board. These ten then choose a deputy postmaster general, who becomes the 11th member of the board. The postmaster general and deputy postmaster general serve at the pleasure of the Governors.
Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service - Wikipedia

Name any private company where the president appoints the board of directors requiring confirmation by the Senate?

Glitch said:

What are you talking about? The US Constitution and Congress established and regulate the USPS. The origins of the USPS goes back to the Continental Congress when on July 26, 1775, they appointed Benjamin Franklin the first Postmaster General. The first session of Congress created (or recreated) the USPS in 1789.

Click to expand...

The USPS also has two charters, revised many times. The second charter merges the first with the postal service established by the French in what was later known as the Louisiana Purchase. Congress in its wisdom at the time, demanded a charter for internal management regulation. Further modification of the charters brought the Texas postal system into the USPS, and subsequent modification the California postal system.

Glitch said:

There is nothing "quasi" about the USPS. It is funded by taxpayer funds that were appropriated by Congress. The USPS does generate some revenue through the sale of stamps and other services, but not nearly enough to offset the cost of their operation. There is nothing "self-sufficient" about the USPS, and there never has been. The USPS exists because Congress has the constitutional authority "to establish post offices..." It is not a private organization, or a "quasi-" anything, it is entirely a federal government entity. Just like NASA, the CIA, and dozens of other alphabet agencies, they all fall under the "Independent Agency" label. Meaning they do not belong to a particular department. An "Independent Agency" is not independent of the government, just not part of any established department, like the Department of State, or the Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense, etc., etc.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem is that the USPS has to fund 70 years of pensions, and also their 'pension fund' got 'borrowed' from. They also has to serve everyone, no matter where they live.

RAMOSS said:

Part of the problem is that the USPS has to fund 70 years of pensions, and also their 'pension fund' got 'borrowed' from. They also has to serve everyone, no matter where they live.

Click to expand...

The USPS doesn't fund anything. Congress funds the USPS, just like they fund every other government agency - with taxpayer dollars.

The USPS doesn't deliver my mail, nor do they deliver the mail to half the State of Alaska. Most of western Alaska doesn't even have ZIP codes. Residents have to use the ZIP Code of Bethel or some other nearby city. So the USPS hardly serves everyone no matter where they live, as you erroneously claimed.

Glitch said:

The USPS doesn't fund anything. Congress funds the USPS, just like they fund every other government agency - with taxpayer dollars.

The USPS doesn't deliver my mail, nor do they deliver the mail to half the State of Alaska. Most of western Alaska doesn't even have ZIP codes. Residents have to use the ZIP Code of Bethel or some other nearby city. So the USPS hardly serves everyone no matter where they live, as you erroneously claimed.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said that the USPS has to prefund 75 years of pention in just 10 years The Truth About The Post Office's Financial Mess

RAMOSS said:

That's not what I said. I said that the USPS has to prefund 75 years of pention in just 10 years The Truth About The Post Office's Financial Mess

Click to expand...

That is exactly what you said. I quoted you verbatim, remember?

For ~75 years the USPS had not been paying the pensions of their employees, even though Congress had allocated the funds to the USPS to make those payments. Which is why Congress enacted the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 into law. The law requires the USPS to use the funds Congress allocates to them to be spent on pensions, not as they see fit.

Bucky said:

Disney? Seriously?

Click to expand...

Seriously. They're a ruthless corporation.

Glitch said:

The USPS doesn't fund anything. Congress funds the USPS, just like they fund every other government agency - with taxpayer dollars.

The USPS doesn't deliver my mail, nor do they deliver the mail to half the State of Alaska. Most of western Alaska doesn't even have ZIP codes. Residents have to use the ZIP Code of Bethel or some other nearby city. So the USPS hardly serves everyone no matter where they live, as you erroneously claimed.

Click to expand...

Nope. USPS funds itself.

Also, "some remote areas of Alaska have extra hoops to go through to get mail" is your big rebuttal? :lamo

Deuce said:

Nope. USPS funds itself.

Also, "some remote areas of Alaska have extra hoops to go through to get mail" is your big rebuttal? :lamo

Click to expand...

You clearly have no clue. Congress funds the USPS, just like they fund every other federal government agency. Your lack of basic civics education is showing. Also, what part of "the USPS doesn't deliver mail to parts of Alaska" weren't you able to comprehend? The USPS doesn't deliver mail to most of rural America. If you actually got out of your city and experienced a little of the world you would know this.