503
submitted 4 months ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 36 points 4 months ago

I feel like trying to make the big fish act in our interest and not theirs is fighting windmills.

Better kill the big fish.

Not directly on topic - note how all the socialist revolutionaries always start with killing the smallest fish and hate it the most. The big ones they try to convert.

[-] mark@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago

Genuine question: how do we actually "kill the big fish" though? Majority are going to continue to use big tech out of convenience and because they dont care much.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 months ago

No quick way. There are too many regulations which are enforced badly and abused to actually support that "big fish". Make them fewer and make the punishment swift and unavoidable and hard. And split a few of the worst offenders into parts each in one specific area - Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta are all good candidates.

[-] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I think in the end it all comes down to putting power back into the hands of regulators — power that corporate America has been slowly and steadily eroding for the last 40 years.

A more powerful regulatory state could start enforcing the anti-trust laws we already have on the books by breaking up the massive tech monopolies. Once that's done, new regulations and new legislation against anti-consumer practices are needed, but those will only work if the punishments scale high enough to work as an actual deterrent against the multi-billion dollar tech giants.

Of course, we'd also need massive, MASSIVE campaign finance and lobbying reforms so that monied interested aren't able to sabotage the system all over again.

Or we could just bring back the guillotine... that would probably do the trick too.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

You forgot to say that regulatory apparatus should have much fewer points of failure. That is, it should be made stronger and more efficient, but it should be radically contracted. It's bigger than needs be.

By points of failure I mean opportunities for strong entities to make regulations work for monopolies\oligopolies.

[-] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

US is doing that with TikTok already. The government can snap their fingers and ban / break up companies at the drop of a hat if they want.

[-] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's a sentiment that quite a few others online feel too:

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/03/13/do-people-want-better-facebook-dead-facebook/

I do get the argument though that if no improvement will ever be good enough for some people, then what incentive do they have to change for the better if it won't make a difference to those people either way?

this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
503 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

58073 readers
3106 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS