Techdirt Podcast Episode 190: Should We Break Up Big Tech?

from the pro-tech-anti-trust dept

Tue, Nov 27th 2018 1:30pm — Leigh Beadon

A few weeks ago, we featured a panel discussion with Mike and others at the Lincoln Network's Reboot conference on the podcast. This week we're doing something a little different and featuring another panel discussion from that conference, but one in which Mike wasn't involved. Instead, it's an interesting — and at times contentious — debate about one big question: do the big tech firms need to be broken up?

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: competition, panel discussion, podcast, regulation, technology

4 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2018 @ 1:45pm

Was it moral to drop an atomic bomb on JIA 731?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Adam, 27 Nov 2018 @ 2:15pm

YES.
Big is intrinsically bad. Can't be reformed, particularly in modern era where excess is the norm. Their only goal after success is total domination, just like all others who gain power. It's ridiculous that so much power without any real limits, is allowed in the hands of arrogant 30-year olds.

Technology without morality is masnickism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2018 @ 12:03am
  
  Re:
  How's that Paul Hansmeier defense fund coming along blue boy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 27 Nov 2018 @ 4:58pm
My take:

Matt is clearly someone who has done a lot of study and nuanced thinking on the subject. He's got a good understanding of the issues involved. I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but he's on the right track most of the time.

Jeff felt more like a caricature than a real person, a living, breathing example of Poe's Law. Seriously, if I wanted to write a strawman debate character of a Libertarian troll arguing in bad faith, I would have him do exactly what Jeff did:
- try to reframe everything in terms of economics, reframe the economics in terms of the greatest benefit to the most wealthy and powerful, and assert with no evidence that this state of affairs benefits everyone else
- asserting that there is actually no evidence of the well-understood harm being discussed, then, when called on it, present a standard of evidence that is literally impossible to meet (as one of the other panelists pointed out, thankfully)
- gaslight opponents by asserting, after they tear your shoddy assertions apart, that they have proven your point for you
- interrupt and talk over the top of opponents who are making valid points
For that last one especially, he should have been unceremoniously tossed out by the moderator about 75% of the way through. But his entire shtick from beginning to end was straight out of the bog-standard Libertarian troll playbook; I could predict the majority of what he said because I've seen it so many times. And it's really getting old.

And Hal... was there too. And he said some things.

My take on this: I was happy to hear someone mention the "too big to fail" problem, because it ties into something that's been running around in my mind for a while now. We've seen several Techdirt articles (and podcasts) talking about moderation at scale, and how it's literally impossible for platforms such as Facebook and YouTube to successfully moderate their content.

Every time, I'm reminded of Bernie Sanders' famous statement that "too big to fail is too big to exist." Might I suggest, in this context, the slightly less controversial proposition that too big to succeed is too big to exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]