pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 15 Aug
As someone that uses non-Google services for everything I have a problem with the way we define monopoly.
- What if the cure is worse than the disease?
- What if as Google abuses its market position competitors gain market share (effectively solving the problem)
- What if people are more happy with Google than any competitor? Are they wrong?
Conversations about monopoly get really hard to rationalize about without clear definitions. Google dominates many markets in tech, that isn't in question. Personally I choose to not use them but I'm the exception. Why? Alternatives work just fine. In some cases they are superior.
The main argument against monopolies are that they abuse their market dominance to the detriment of their customers.
The state (government) has a monopoly on governance and violence. Do we really think they do not abuse this monopoly? How easy is it to change governments? Sure we have elections but do you really think that changes things? Its not like switching companies. I can assure you it is far easier to de-google your life than to remove the influence of the state in your life.
Google is a company that has to entice the public to use its services. They have killed that. The state uses violence to steal the productive resources of its citizens. They allow us to pick our rulers from a small subset of elites. So that makes it all good right?
I'm not a fan of Google. The solution to both monopolies is to make them obsolete and we have far more ability to do that to Google than the state.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taurus 16 Aug
I’m pretty sure you use their services without even knowing it.. ads, payments cards and more data manipulation
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @JesseJames 15 Aug
The fix is simple (IMHO) time to de-google yourself. You will have no more google problem.
Hard to do since almost everyone swallowed that hook already but not impossible. Baby steps... and you will get there.
First, change your browser, stop using google chrome and use something "slightly" more secure like Brave.
Second, Get google Pixel (what?)... and install GrapheneOS on it :-) (oh, ok)
The list is long...
reply
0 sats \ 14 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 15 Aug
We've all ready been through this with Standard Oil, and Ma and Pa Bell. Solution is the same. The solution that won't work is what was tried with Microsoft.
reply
0 sats \ 13 replies \ @kepford 15 Aug
Do you mean trust busting is the solution?
Do you believe Microsoft is still a monopoly?
Do you believe that monopolies are always bad?
reply
0 sats \ 12 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 15 Aug
-
Yes.
-
Absolutely.
-
Generally. Power tends to corrupt.
reply
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @kepford 15 Aug
Is the government a monopoly?
Are power company monopolies bad/harmful?
How do you define a monopoly?
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 15 Aug
-
It is supposed to be a representative Republic. If it is a monopoly, it isn't that.
-
To the extent number 1 is compromised, yes.
-
Monopoly -- A capitalist system in which there is no competition because the financial power is (unfairly) resting in the hands of a given corporation acting as a market.
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford 15 Aug
So if we all owned stock in Google would that make its "monopoly" just? We would all have ownership in a way that is similar to democracy right?
The state (government) is the invisible monopoly. It has monopoly over law and violence in its geographic borders. If you are I try to do what the agents of the state do we will be put in a dark cage. If another competing government attempted to grab some market share of the US citizens they would be met with violence. I consider that a monopoly. If you are a citizen in the US your only choice is to leave and pick another monopoly government to live under.
We can agree to disagree but I was curious. Seems like you hold the position taught in our government schools. Thank you for engaging honestly.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 15 Aug
That's a "representative monopoly" not a Republic. It violates my 3rd definition as there is no meaningful competition. (to google)
It is if its laws are unjust. The states are supposed to be "Sovereign". The federal government is supposed to make sure the states do that in a way consistent with the Constitution.
That's a government beholden to a monopoly which is not what it is supposed to do. (Constitutionally)
No, you could fight what you perceive to be an injustice in court. That's another option. You could also form a political thinktank or action group. That's another option. You could organize a group of people to peaceably protest. That's still another option. You could bombard your Representatives with letters or a petition. There are many forms of resistance if there is tyranny. Your position excludes all those options and adopts a "loser" mentality.
My perspective is based on the US Constitution, which I dare say, is not really taught in government schools.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 15 Aug
Don't misunderstand me.
I understand how the US system was designed to work. I think the framers had many good ideas. Republics are far better than centralized states. But none of that changes the fact that the state has a monopoly. And once you see that many of the problems in the current US system become more clear. Corrupt politicians are just an obvious side effect. Companies like Google use the state's monopoly power to create motes that make competition harder. The state finds it easier to work with a few powerful companies. The state is a centralizing force.
The beset solution to monopolies I've seen is to allow the free market to work. But that's hard to see because the markets are so manipulated by the state (being paid off by elites).
view replies
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 15 Aug
What you call "loser" mentality I call realism.
I used to believe all that you just espoused. The reality is that the individual's rights are trampled and the Constitution is powerless to stop that.
view replies