Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week, we cover Liz Warren’s plan to break up the big tech companies, Ilhan Omar’s latent (or maybe not so latent) anti-Semitism from the perspective of an actual member of her district, and chat about the Democrats boycotting of Fox News for one of their upcoming debates. Oh, yeah — we’ve also got the great Andy McCarthy on Manafort, Cohen, and what to expect on seemingly perpetual soon-to-come Mueller report.
Music from this week’s episode: Mayor of Simpleton by XTC
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
She won’t, because it complicates the issue, and she’s going for the red-meat business-is-bad audience, because capitalism
Surveillance? It’s storage. I’m not sure what you mean. But let’s say we go full Warren and break up Amazon. You’ll have two parts: Retail, and AWS. (Cloud.) Unless we’re talking about breaking up AWS because it has 30% of the market, and split it into two companies that cannot have more than 15% of the market. If you distrust them with 30% of the market, will you trust them with 15%? Or 17%?
Anti-trust against tech always lags behind what’s coming to reshape the landscape – chopping up the barn into smaller barns after the horses are gone.
I get it, and I’m on your side re: the ridiculous EULAs required to see those pix. But what does “the state breaking up Facebook” look like? It’s split into three companies, one of which handles Instagram, one of which has WhatsApp, and one of which has FB where all the pictures of your relatives can be found – nothing’s changed about the fundamental issues of privacy, tracking, data collection, etc. You just have three different logons now.
A better approach is a raft of regulations that expressly forbid tracking, data mining, data sharing with 3rd parties, etc unless you opt in, and not by mindlessly scrolling through terms & conditions and clicking ACCEPT. You’d have to go to a preference panel and enable everything the company wants to do
But they’re not monopolies.
Oh, a few things got left out. Before the teeth-brushing with Quip, there’s the lovely dinner from Butcher Box or Hello Fresh, accompanied by a fine brew from Hopsy.
Thanks for the reply, James!! (BTW, I agree with you on many things!) Still think you’re too blithe about this issue.
It’s not just storage—it can be accessed by certain parties, whether within or outside the collecting data surveillor. You have a good point; I don’t trust them at all. I like your idea of forbidding tracking, data mining, data sharing, etc. (Wonder what their revenue model would look like then?)
And yes, they’re de facto monopolies. It’s a distinction without a difference until that next tech wave comes along.
p.s. @blueyeti the correct spelling is Ilhan. And it should probably be “Ilhan Omar’s latent…” as well as “the Democrats’ boycotting…”
Big tech may not be monopolies, but they are a cartel. They coordinate activities to suppress direct competition between themselves and to lock out smaller outside competitors.
Facebook should not have been allowed to acquire WhatsApp and Instagram. Google should not have been allowed to acquire YouTube. If you want to bust them up, that’s a good place to start.
Holy crap. Look at this Jim Clyburn quote at 4:20.
You’re right about that, Taras. (Also an angel compared to LBJ.)
What is wrong about this? I say it’s dead-on. Dennis Prager is always making this point.
Rob Long calls that ‘whataboutism’ , I see nothing wrong with ‘whataboutism’, if the same offense gets a $100 fine for most people but a $10,000 fine for others , we have every right to question the fairness of the rules.
Eight years in they knew Medicare was a disaster. The Great Society was a disaster. He totally intimidated Arthur Burns into giving him the free money to do it. All of those guys at the Fed knew it was going to be a disaster, which it was. Textbook inflation.
I say you mostly have to keep them separate.
@blueyeti There are non-conservative-types like Meghan Murphy, Tim Pool, Carl Benjamin, Chris Ray Maldonado, and Dave Rubin who also get targeted by the social media hate mob. Tim Pool, who gets called alt-Right, is about as far Left as anybody, but he believes in free speech, is against the Green New Deal, and does not believe that government policy should be based upon skin color. There are probably many others, but I don’t know all the names. Apparently a few people from Occupy Wall Street and the anti-war Left have been targeted too.
Attacking a person’s bank accounts or money transferring ability is real scary. How can that be legal? If the person is a criminal that’s one thing, but why should private individuals be able to target other private individuals in this way just for their own amusement?
I’ve always understood the “both sides” to mean both sides of the argument of whether to keep the statue, or remove it. I must be one of the good people, because I’m all for keeping the statues, but those idiot white supremacists keep screwing things up for everybody . . .
So incredibly dumb of Trump to say that when the people he described as “fine” were marching along with “idiot white supremacists” carrying Swastikas on flags. I would imagine that any “fine” people who were there to support keeping statues would have run a mile rather than risk being associated with those disgusting people.
Speaking under “civic pressure” for lack of a better term, is really hard. Political executives have to do this, sometimes or frequently. You are better off if you have experience. Business people rarely have to do this and, as far as I’m concerned, legislators mostly just get to yak without any consequence.
These are along the lines of my thoughts. Elizabeth Warren’s particular plan may be “phenomenally dumb” and I may think it’s not at a point yet to break them up but I don’t think paying attention to Google or Facebook getting too powerful is a bad idea or not Conservative. Also, I’m not so sure I agree with @JamesLileks that you can just opt out of Facebook and it doesn’t touch us. I was at a special operations conference last week and heard from one of the authors of LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media. This was one of his slides.
It’s hard for me to think that a platform with so many people doesn’t influence beyond only its users. Plus, I deal with a lot of people who are responsible for information warfare in their countries and know for a fact social media affects national security.
I actually started writing my thoughts down a few months ago about why I’m OK with whataboutism. I should go back and finish it at some point. I was writing it just to get my thoughts down on paper but now that I’m on Ricochet I have a bit more incentive to finish it.
Listen to Andrew Klavan’s podcast today, it seems he has a slightly different definition of it. He cites the press’s excusing actual violence on the left by comparing it to a tweet on the right. I go to the press’s chuckling over what (they let) JFK got away with while going full hair on fire about Trump’s mere private comment on what a celebrity COULD get away with. I believe this is what Rob Long and others object to, excusing our guy’s bad behavior by citing other bad behavior. I say not mentioning it gives them a feee pass.
I actually think that Elizabeth Warren may have some good ideas in what the media refers to “breaking up” of Big Tech. One of my favorite podcasts is Tom Merritt’s Daily Tech News Show . On last Friday’s edition, they described at least part of her plan as (from the show notes):
I think that there may be some merit in defining platforms like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc. as “platform utilities”. Of course, as always, the devil is in the details as to what types of “censorship” laws and regulations might be enacted.
What is wrong about this, you ask? Only the parentheses. I say remove them, put it out there, with as much emphasis as anything else: Donald Trump is an angel compared to JFK, LBJ, and Bubba.
(But what would National Review‘s conscience David French say?)
Trump has merely been more successful at implementing conservative policies than any President in your lifetime. Get over it.
You Stad, are entirely correct. Andrew Klavan has explained this countless times. Claims that Trump intended one of the “both sides” to mean the tiki torch-carrying nimrod Nazi/Klan wannabes is FAKE NEWS, it is a lie. As Klavan has recited over and over, if you simply read the full sentence before the “both sides” comment, it is clear that Trump was speaking of the debate about what to do with Confederate historical monuments.
By my hearing, the ordinarily extraordinarily articulate James Lileks referenced the “both sides” comment in such a way as to perpetuate the lie. I don’t think he meant to perpetuate the lie.
And you descend to a personal attack, just like the man you admire so much. I don’t agree with your statement but I am certainly not going to argue with someone who tells me to “get over it”. Not worth it. I wish Ricochet had a “mute” button.
The next time you (or you or you) have Andy McCarthy on, perhaps you all could discuss over what, exactly Congress has oversight responsibility. I have always assumed that Congress’s oversight responsibility extends only to the conduct of the federal government. Yet Congressman Jerrold Nadler, in discussing the document requests he sent to eighty-one (81) private citizens and organizations, said
The last several years? Trump has been President for barely two (2) years. Is there any evidence that say, Cambridge Analytica, or Irakly “Ike” Kaveladze, or Viktor Vekselberg has had any contact with the federal government?
Does Nadler believe that as a Congressional Committee Chairman, he’s entitled to oversight of everything? Hey Congressman – I let my dog off the leash when I take him to the local public park. Do you want to investigate that blatant lawlessness as part of your oversight responsibility?
Seriously? “Get over it” is a personal attack?
Seriously?
Oh you meant it as a compliment? Don’t be obtuse.
“Obtuse?”
So now you descend – intentionally – to personal attack.
A “mute” button. Seriously?
A “mute” button silences speech, right?
No you can keep speaking all you want. I just don’t have to listen to you.
Who said anything about “the man you admire so much?” I certainly didn’t. I praised the successful implemenation of conservative policies.
Talking about “the man you admire so much” in this thread is FAKE NEWS! Shame on those who broadcast fake news.