The US government can “try” whatever it likes. What they end up actually doing is what matters. Call me when the government actually breaks up Facebook
Yeah, the Facebook comparison is a near-perfect one, and I guess we're about to see which government is more serious about taking on capital. I know who my money's on.
The U.S. government isn't a monolithic entity (at least when it comes to domestic policy, and especially when it comes to antitrust regulation). State AGs can bring antitrust cases, for example, and it's a big stretch to say every single one of them is on board with every single U.S. monopoly just continuing on untouched. Even if the relevant decision makers don't actually care about corporate power one way or the other, careerists are always out there looking for a way to make a name for themselves.
Some parts of the government do want to enforce antitrust laws; they're just the minority, and they're hampered by so much of the government being too old to comprehend the extent of what tech companies are doing. You're absolutely right, though, that there are a lot of insincere threats made with the intent of gaining cooperation with law enforcement and the intelligence state.
they are following the same process here, Ant Group is yet to be broken up as well. They are the same stage in terms of "orders", and the campaigns against the tech giants have been going on for comparable periods.
this is still regulated capitalism, the us gov is trying to break up facebook so its not like this is even much better
The US government can “try” whatever it likes. What they end up actually doing is what matters. Call me when the government actually breaks up Facebook
Yeah, the Facebook comparison is a near-perfect one, and I guess we're about to see which government is more serious about taking on capital. I know who my money's on.
I mean, the US government never actually wanted to break up the social media conglomerates.
That was just a bargaining position they held until social media companies stopped resisting getting fully folded into the intelligence apparatus.
The U.S. government isn't a monolithic entity (at least when it comes to domestic policy, and especially when it comes to antitrust regulation). State AGs can bring antitrust cases, for example, and it's a big stretch to say every single one of them is on board with every single U.S. monopoly just continuing on untouched. Even if the relevant decision makers don't actually care about corporate power one way or the other, careerists are always out there looking for a way to make a name for themselves.
Some parts of the government do want to enforce antitrust laws; they're just the minority, and they're hampered by so much of the government being too old to comprehend the extent of what tech companies are doing. You're absolutely right, though, that there are a lot of insincere threats made with the intent of gaining cooperation with law enforcement and the intelligence state.
>implying this is any different
deleted by creator
We have to see how this pans out before we classify it. It may go well beyond simply breaking up Alibaba into smaller companies.
they are following the same process here, Ant Group is yet to be broken up as well. They are the same stage in terms of "orders", and the campaigns against the tech giants have been going on for comparable periods.
We’ll see who gets it done first then
enjoy watching the race to regulated capitalism ig
Socialism is when no regulation
Socialism is when regulation
Certified Bernie brain moment
And the less regulation there is, the socialister is gets
love all our communist regulators in US congress ✊✊✊
And when there’s no regulation at all, that’s COMMUNISM :CommiePOGGERS:
yes, the state enforces capitalism
So who enforces socialism
me and u :bakunin-immortan:
I’ll resist the urge to get into sectarian shit slinging and agree with you, comrade ✊