PragerU's Not a Real Uni and Murder is Wrong.

[Foxi4]

We did? Tell that to some extremist groups that still exist today.

Which ones are officially operating and are not faced with overwhelming public disapproval? It should be easy to name some.

 

[Xzi]

Workers absolutely have power over the company, the company doesn't exist without the workers. This isn't even a right-wing talking point, this is a left-wing talking point and the origin of worker unions.

Unions no longer have the power that they once did (largely because of corporate lobbying), and we're well past the age of companies showing loyalty to their employees. There are a ton of jobs available right now, but they all pay shit and the working conditions are often even worse than that. Revolving door positions are extremely common now. So how is an individual worker meant to have any influence whatsoever on a system so rigged against them?

 

[Foxi4]

Unions no longer have the power that they once did (largely because of corporate lobbying), and we're well past the age of companies showing loyalty to their employees. There are a ton of jobs available right now, but they all pay shit and the working conditions are often even worse than that. Revolving door positions are extremely common now. So how is a single worker meant to have any influence whatsoever on a system so rigged against them?

I don't have a problem with that. I prefer individuals bargaining over collective bargaining. It's not the fault of the company that you lack marketable skills or fail to market them.

 

[SG854]

They don't though. Corporations know that they're paying workers far less than the value of what they produce, and it's been going on for decades. Which is how you end up with such a massive income inequality gap: the people at the top overvalue their contributions while severely undervaluing the contributions of those at the bottom.


Tech and social media are the worst about this now. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon all have massive monopolies that they keep expanding into other areas. On the TV and movies side, you've got Disney owning about 70% of all entertainment. I don't even want to mention Comcast and Time Warner being the only ISPs for most of the US. I'm not sure why this is allowed to happen, we already have the precedent set from the Microsoft breakup in the 90s. Then again, I suppose you need a government that isn't in complete chaos and actually wants to do something about monopolies before the ball gets rolling.

70% is not a monopoly. Monopoly means 1.

And Microsoft never had a monopoly. And anti trust against them didn’t make sense. There is Apple OS, Linux, and a bunch of other substitute OS’s. Munich in 2003 switch 14,000 of their computers from Microsoft to Linux. That’s not monopoly.

Even anti trust laws didn’t make sense against Budweiser either. They had control of 46% of the beer sales but it’s still not monopoly. There’s still more then 400 new brewers added, so more then 2,751 brewers exist.

And beer is just 1 type of alcoholic drink you can buy. And beer has been loosing market share to other type of alcoholic drinks in the past decade.

A monopoly is rare as long as competition can enter freely in the market. You won’t be able to give me many examples of monopolies.

 

[osm70]

Which ones are officially operating and are not faced with overwhelming public disapproval.

I can name a few that exist. But I cannot name any that aren't facing disapproval.

 

[Foxi4]

I can name a few that exist. But I cannot name any that aren't facing disapproval.

So they're not aligned with acceptable norms of behaviour then, they're outliers.

 

[osm70]

So they're not aligned with acceptable norms of behaviour then, they're outliers.

Agreed.

The members of those groups think they aren't doing anything wrong, right?

 

[Xzi]

I don't have a problem with that. I prefer individuals bargaining over collective bargaining. It's not the fault of the company that you lack marketable skills or fail to market them.

Again, unless you're going straight for CEO, companies underpay regardless of skills or resume. Individual bargaining gets you maybe a dollar or two extra at hire if you're lucky. And that's assuming the employer didn't already drop the base pay, knowing that people would ask for slightly more anyway. Everybody's wages in 2018 are well below what they would be accounting for rate of inflation alone. Some people are fine with getting fleeced like this I suppose, the majority are ignorant that it's even happening.

70% is not a monopoly. Monopoly means 1.

Waiting until one company owns everything in a given market sector before enforcing anti-trust laws would be ridiculous. I'd seriously contemplate suicide if every channel was the Disney channel.

 

[Foxi4]

Agreed.

The members of those groups think they aren't doing anything wrong, right?

They're in a bubble. They're sub-cultures with different standards and they're rife with cognitive dissonance. This is learned behaviour, I'm sure we can both agree on that. The only natural element is the fear of the unknown, which is understandable and relatable. We all have prejudices.

 

[SG854]

Again, unless you're going straight for CEO, companies underpay regardless of skills or resume. Individual bargaining gets you maybe a dollar or two extra at hire if you're lucky. And that's assuming the employer didn't already drop the base pay, knowing that people would ask for slightly more anyway. Everybody's wages in 2018 are well below what they would be accounting for rate of inflation alone. Some people are fine with getting fleeced like this I suppose, the majority are ignorant that it's even happening.


Waiting until one company owns everything in a given market sector before enforcing anti-trust laws would be ridiculous. I'd seriously consider suicide if every channel was the Disney channel.

That’s a slippery slope argument. Can you name 1 example that has ever happened?

 

[Foxi4]

That’s a slippery slope argument. Can you name 1 example that has ever happened?

Absolutely - Bell Systems and the telecoms business. With that said, a 100% monopoly must necessarily have government backing, otherwise private enterprise will breed competition. Competition always surfaces wherever money can be made.

 

[Xzi]

That’s a slippery slope argument. Can you name 1 example that has ever happened?

It hasn't happened yet because we didn't give up on enforcing those laws until recently. Continuing down this same path, we've got maybe another decade before we see fully-saturated monopolies. Meanwhile, the largest corporations are allowed to expand into any and every market sector they want, starving out any competition.

Absolutely - Bell Systems and the telecoms business. With that said, a 100% monopoly must necessarily have government backing, otherwise private enterprise will breed competition. Competition always surfaces wherever money can be made.

Apple and Google kind of compete with one another, but no company is going to pop up out of the mud to challenge those two. Amazon cannot be challenged as they'll just undercut anyone that refuses to be bought out. Facebook knows everything about everybody because their trackers are in just about every website. I don't see another Myspace-like challenger to their dominance happening. The list goes on and on. These corporations have strangleholds over their respective sectors, and competition literally is no longer possible for them. They write the rules for themselves at this point.

 

[SG854]

Absolutely - Bell Systems and the telecoms business. With that said, a 100% monopoly must necessarily have government backing, otherwise private enterprise will breed competition. Competition always surfaces wherever money can be made.

Yes, they need government to gain control to restrict competition from entering. Even examples people give are hardly monopolies either.

And even price gouging isn’t a bad thing either. It’s just another way of saying supply and demand. Supply low, demand high, things are more expensive because people try to outbid each other from an item in scarcity.

When people see the price gouging prices more people want to enter in the market to price gouge also and make lots of money. More people entering means an item in low supply that is really needed like food is now plentiful. Then prices come down from high supply and low demand through competition. Expensive prices in the beginning is a price to pay for something to more readily available latter on.

Only price gouging is a problem if competition is prevented from entering the market.

 

[Foxi4]

It hasn't happened yet because we didn't give up on enforcing those laws until recently. Continuing down this same path, we've got maybe another decade before we see fully-saturated monopolies. Meanwhile, the largest corporations are allowed to expand into any and every market sector they want, starving out any competition.

EDIT: Apple and Google compete in the goods market, but they collude in terms of services. The deplatforming phenomenon shows that once one platform removes you, other platforms follow suit as the gates were opened. This phenomenon is called "unpersoning" - all of a sudden you're not allowed anywhere.

Easy fix - take Safe Harbor away. Most of the IT giants exist specifically because liability is put on the users, not on the company. This allows Alphabet to operate without any scorn from the government. What Alphabet is conveniently neglecting to uphold is that Safe Harbor comes with a caveat - they must provide equal access to everyone. Since this is obviously not the case and all Google entities are heavily moderated and censored, they no longer qualify as public platforms and should instead be considered publishers - they're the ones who started monitoring and censoring content. Without Safe Harbor protecting the online giants they will eat eachother while smaller platforms still free and still protected can flourish and displace them.

Yes, they need government to gain control to restrict competition from entering. Even examples people give are hardly monopolies either.

And even price gouging isn’t a bad thing either. It’s just another way of saying supply and demand. Supply low, demand high, things are more expensive because people try to outbid each other from an item in scarcity.

When people see the price gouging prices more people want to enter in the market to price gouge also and make lots of money. More people entering means an item in low supply that is really needed like food is now plentiful. Then prices come down from high supply and low demand through competition. Expensive prices in the beginning is a price to pay for something to more readily available latter on.

Only price gouging is a problem if competition is prevented from entering the market.

I agree, government meddling is a necessary component if every monopoly, which is why it should be excised from the sphere of private business. Since we don't live in that perfect world, we must work on other mechanisms. I don't disagree with any principles you've outlined, they're all correct.

 

[osm70]

Easy fix - take Safe Harbor away. Most of the IT giants exist specifically because liability is put on the users, not on the company. This allows Alphabet to operate without any scorn from the government. What Alphabet is conveniently neglecting to uphold is that Safe Harbor comes with a caveat - they must provide equal access to everyone. Since this is obviously not the case and all Google entities are heavily moderated and censored, they no longer qualify as public platforms and should instead be considered publishers - they're the ones who started monitoring and censoring content. Without Safe Harbor protecting the online giants they will eat eachother while smaller platforms still free and still protected can flourish and displace them.

I agree, government meddling is a necessary component if every monopoly, which is why it should be excised from the sphere of private business. Since we don't live in that perfect world, we must work on other mechanisms. I don't disagree with any principles you've outlined, they're all correct.

You mean... what Article 13 is trying to pull?

 

[Xzi]

Easy fix - take Safe Harbor away. Most of the IT giants exist specifically because liability is put on the users, not on the company. This allows Alphabet to operate without any scorn from the government. What Alphabet is conveniently neglecting to uphold is that Safe Harbor comes with a caveat - they must provide equal access to everyone. Since this is obviously not the case and all Google entities are heavily moderated and censored, they no longer qualify as public platforms and should instead be considered publishers - they're the ones who started monitoring and censoring content. Without Safe Harbor protecting the online giants they will eat eachother while smaller platforms still free and still protected can flourish and displace them.

I don't see that this really fixes the problem, just about everything on the internet is moderated by somebody. It still leaves Google/Alphabet with several other sectors where they hold market dominance. Online forums and comments don't make them nearly as much money as hardware, hosting, and other technology investments do.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't see that this really fixes the problem, just about everything on the internet is moderated by somebody. It still leaves Google/Alphabet with several other sectors where they hold market dominance. Online forums and comments don't make them nearly as much money as hardware, hosting, and other technology investments do.

The infrastructure is powered by ads, we both know that.

You mean... what Article 13 is trying to pull?

Article 13 is the exact opposite, it limits speech and expression.

This conversation is fascinating and I am committed to continue it, but I have guests and I am unironically a bottle of vodka deep into the Christmas Eve party. Care to continue tomorrow?

 

[osm70]

The infrastructure is powered by ads, we both know that.

Article 13 is the exact opposite, it limits speech and expression.

This conversation is fascinating and I am committed to continue it, but I have guests and I am unironically a bottle of vodka deep into the Christmas Eve party. Care to continue tomorrow?

Yeah, Article 13 is limiting... by removing Safe Harbor. Or am I wrong?

 

[Xzi]

The infrastructure is powered by ads, we both know that.

That and Android phones are probably their biggest cash cows, yes. They've got their hands in absolutely everything though, just as Amazon and Facebook do. There are basically only two big players left when it comes to video hosting: Youtube and Twitch, owned by Google and Amazon respectively. Netflix also runs through Amazon now. It's just going to keep going like this until roughly four companies each own a quarter of everything that happens on the internet.

 

[Foxi4]

That and Android phones are probably their biggest cash cows, yes. They've got their hands in absolutely everything though, just as Amazon and Facebook do. There are basically only two big players left when it comes to video hosting: Youtube and Twitch, owned by Google and Amazon respectively. Netflix also runs through Amazon now. It's just going to keep going until like four companies each own a quarter of everything that happens on the internet.

It's sad that the Internet is getting smaller, not bigger. This is why I support upstarts like stream dot me, we need to support the alternatives. But alas, as I already mentioned, I fully intend to be a drunk fool tonight, so I must depart while I am still coherent.