Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Liberal Logic: Let's nationalize Google, Amazon and Facebook, because they're too valuable to leave in the hands of the people who created them and should be handed over to the people who spend $850 million on websites that don't work   (salon.com) divider line 280
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

6449 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Jul 2014 at 8:07 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-14 10:05:05 AM  
So the first page of this thread is a bunch of self-identified libs calling this article crap.  The second page is the usual derpers derping.

Mission accomplished.
 
2014-07-14 10:06:43 AM  
Oh man american conservatives are so cute. They wouldn't know liberal if it squatted in their house long enough to get control.
 
2014-07-14 10:07:06 AM  

Quantumbunny: Barnes And Nobles is trying so hard to get into Ebooks


As I wrote above, B&N is actually trying to get out of ebooks at the moment.

It's decided to spin off its highly unprofitable Nook business and focus on its brick-and-mortar stores which still turn a profit.

Which is a shame, since Nooks weren't bad devices and their ebook selection was actually pretty good.
 
2014-07-14 10:11:48 AM  

docrhody: Nobody born after the baby boomers will agree with anything this guy said.  I just hate that he left no way to reply to his uninformed argument.  Typical, we'll just take what we want, if we can't take, we control it and run it into the ground.  It's time to wake up and expose these people for the spoiled brats they are.  They used their numbers to rob their parents, and now they steal the future to make their life easy.  Talk about "tyranny of the majority."  And this person is a liberal following classic liberal logic.  Liberals want the expansion of government and government control.  Modern young people think they are liberal because they support gay marriage and marijuana legalization.  This actually removes government control and is classically conservative.  Now that your brain is all twisted up-- most people are socially "liberal" and fiscally conservative.  Or by classic definition conservative.  They changed the textbooks to tell everyone they were liberal.  Read one from before 1970.  And today's republicans are not conservative, they are liberal by classic definition.  They decided to change the definition to divide the voters in hopes of winning elections.  Personally, I think government should be limited to Military, emergency services, and garbage pick-up.


Wow, it's Pocket Ninja, only serious.
 
2014-07-14 10:12:14 AM  
Liberal logic explained by conservatives is never liberal logic. Not sure if they are trying to make liberals angry with the "Liberal logic 101" stuff or if they are just that detached from reality. Probably both.
 
2014-07-14 10:14:49 AM  
Granted I skimmed over the list of 'reasons' because my brain can only handle so much derp in the AM, but let's take a look at each rationale in order, shall we?

Big Tech's services have become a necessity in modern society.
SFW?  So is food.  Is food nationalized?

They're at or near monopoly status - and moving fast.
Believe it on not, I agree.  But there's a solution: the Sherman Anti-Trust act.  Of further information Google (heh) Ma Bell.

They abuse their power.
Wow!  Amazing straw man slaying there!  Just curious, would they be any less abusive with Uncle Sam wielding the power?  The proposed solution makes them more powerful and gives the power to the government.  Bad idea.

They got there with our help.
As Way South noted, that's like saying car companies got there because of spending on the highway system.

The real "commodity" is us.
Again, SFW?  We are not the government, contrary to your peoples' poet delusions.

Our privacy is dying ... or already dead.
And giving Google to the NSA will help.  Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure!

Freedom of information is at risk.
Not this excrement again.  (insert snark about the most transparent administration ever)

The free market could become even less free.
The solution to crony capitalism is not government take over unless yo want to end up waiting in line for toilet paper as in Caracas.  The solution is to encourage competition.

They could hijack the future.
An empty slogan for empty heads.
 
2014-07-14 10:15:19 AM  
FTA: "
They're huge and ruthless and define our lives. They're close to monopolies. Let's make them public utilities
 "

Hey... we should nationalize the government!
 
2014-07-14 10:17:51 AM  

themindiswatching: subby once again confuses some random crackpot on Salon with the liberals that don't live in his head.


This is Fark, so if one person from a group does something or thinks in some way, it means all people in that group do it. Especially when it comes to politics.
 
2014-07-14 10:22:38 AM  

Quantumbunny: Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them?


Menards?

Quantumbunny: just because some video stores and book stores died doesn't mean large chains killed them.


For video stores it is (in areas I've lived) absolutely true.  Long before VOD, streaming video that isn't real player based, etc. there were dozens of independent video stores.  The came Blockbuster.  I can think of several instances where BB setup their store in the same strip mall as a mom and pop video store.  The mom and pop store (which was thriving before) could not compete on volume.  That's why there is a certain amount of joy to see the predator become the prey.

//Mom and pop video stores might not have survived in today's market either, but they would have gotten to it without Blockbuster.
 
2014-07-14 10:25:02 AM  

Quantumbunny: Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them?


Menards.  And they're awesome.

There are also many other small local hardware stores.  And they're also awesome, because they've got the oddball crap for fixing stuff in older houses and they're specific to the things that were used in your local area and a lot of them also do small engine repair.  Home Depot and Lowe's really only target new construction.  Most local hardware stores are independently operated franchises of Ace, Do It Best or True Value.

Back to TFA, there are about 50 different video sharing websites you can use if you don't like YouTube.  Or you can buy a Qnap Snap server and run your own.  That's a market with very low barriers to entry.  And if you must get government involved, that's the number one issue they can focus on, barriers to entry.  The easier it is to get in business and provide competition, the better off we'll all be.

The other thing that we can do is public ownership, done the right way.  Don't nationalize these companies.  That's a really bad idea.  Instead, institute a 2% tax and use that to universally fund investment accounts for all citizens, with the caveat that you can only withdraw dividends and never principal.  Sure, some idiots will still find a way to lose everything, but some people just can't be helped.  99% of the population will still be vastly better off.  This is an approach I like to call libertarian communism.
 
2014-07-14 10:25:45 AM  
They'll just get a bailout like GM did if they ever crash while being too big to fail.
 
2014-07-14 10:26:06 AM  
Out yourself Subby
 
2014-07-14 10:27:46 AM  
The constitution provides for the postal service, and back when that was written, snail mail was the only way for people to communicate over long distance. They felt that it was the government's duty to facilitate communication and the  exchange of information. So, very likely, if they were to come back to life, and not as tricorn hat zombies, but as real flesh and blood people, they would want to nationalize the telecoms. And then they'd all start surfing for porn. Lots and lots of porn.
 
2014-07-14 10:28:50 AM  

NewWorldDan: Menards. And they're awesome.


Beat you by this much.
 
2014-07-14 10:29:15 AM  
That's "liberal logic" and not "my favorite website logic"? How conservative logic of you.
 
2014-07-14 10:29:31 AM  
"Liberal..."
What?  Huh?
 
2014-07-14 10:30:07 AM  
.find_in_page{background-color:#ffff00 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}.findysel{background-color:#ff9632 !important;padding:0px;margin:0px;overflow:visible !important;}

EvilEgg: I support this and all far left guys, if only to show Americans what a real far left position is, so we can move the conversation back towards the middle.


Far left, sure it is, and Sarah Palin tells you that the New York Times engages in "yellow journalism".

Being a tea partier must be great, you open your mouth, any old thing comes out, and your fellow party members believe it, and nobody even thinks of looking in a book or a dictionary.
 
2014-07-14 10:32:25 AM  

MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.


Which was kind of hilarious in hindsight, because Microsoft's own arrogant failure to update their browser substantially after they took over the market is what really gave upstarts like Firefox and Chrome a chance to end the Microsoft monopoly on the internet. It was basically a textbook case of the free market self correcting. I'm generally for the government helping regulate monopolies, but the Microsoft case was just idiotic and had no real impact on anything, especially since EVERY current OS includes a bundled default browser.

At least it didn't go quite as full derp as the EU decision, which adds a stupid browser ballot during setup, even though customers will get asked to download and install Chrome every time they go to Google's homepage. As far as antitrust litigation goes, the Microsoft cases were the worst wastes of time ever.
 
2014-07-14 10:35:56 AM  
Big Tech's services have become a necessity in modern society.

Google and Amazon are by no means a "necessity." That's like saying Facebook is a "necessity."
 
2014-07-14 10:36:47 AM  

Wolfmanjames: Granted I skimmed over the list of 'reasons' because my brain can only handle so much derp in the AM, but let's take a look at each rationale in order, shall we?

Big Tech's services have become a necessity in modern society.
SFW?  So is food.  Is food nationalized?

They're at or near monopoly status - and moving fast.
Believe it on not, I agree.  But there's a solution: the Sherman Anti-Trust act.  Of further information Google (heh) Ma Bell.

They abuse their power.
Wow!  Amazing straw man slaying there!  Just curious, would they be any less abusive with Uncle Sam wielding the power?  The proposed solution makes them more powerful and gives the power to the government.  Bad idea.

They got there with our help.
As Way South noted, that's like saying car companies got there because of spending on the highway system.

The real "commodity" is us.
Again, SFW?  We are not the government, contrary to your peoples' poet delusions.

Our privacy is dying ... or already dead.
And giving Google to the NSA will help.  Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure!

Freedom of information is at risk.
Not this excrement again.  (insert snark about the most transparent administration ever)

The free market could become even less free.
The solution to crony capitalism is not government take over unless yo want to end up waiting in line for toilet paper as in Caracas.  The solution is to encourage competition.

They could hijack the future.
An empty slogan for empty heads.


Odds are your food got to you on trucks on public highways...  But good point about crony capitalism, although at some point if your capitalist is big enough the competition isn't going to be there.

The Sherman act is kind of what the article is about, isn't it?
 
2014-07-14 10:37:32 AM  
What website doesn't work for 800 million?
 
2014-07-14 10:37:38 AM  

1derful: And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.


Please shut up until you gain some intelligence.
 
2014-07-14 10:39:09 AM  

Doc Daneeka: I certainly don't think they should be nationalized, but Amazon's monopolistic tendencies (particularly WRT the book market) and their Wal-Mart-like strong-arming of suppliers/publishers does concern me, and cannot be good for consumers in the long run.

I've been a customer of Amazon back since they only sold books, but as they have grown more and more powerful I have been more supportive of alternatives.  Competition is needed.


Hatchette is a hilarious example for people to keep bringing up, since they plead guilty to conspiring to fix e-book prices with other publishers. In my eyes, Amazon is somewhat forgiven for playing hardball because their opponent has already fought dirty and been called out by the DoJ. Hatchette isn't some innocent little mom and pop business, but rather is a huge publisher who fought tooth and nail to screw customers out of their cash by keeping prices artificially high.
 
2014-07-14 10:47:58 AM  

Cletus C.: INeedAName: smashyou: What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say

The difference between Cons and Libs - when a Lib says something, we don't mind disagreeing.

Just one of the many things that makes you superior. And smug.


[raised hand]

Why isn't it "smug" when a conservative sneers at a liberal?
 
2014-07-14 10:49:43 AM  
The author's name is RJ and the idea comes from a book someone wrote for attention.

Yep, great idea. Let's roll with it.
 
2014-07-14 10:49:50 AM  

1derful: And this is a surprise how?

Read Karl Marx, the liberal's version of Thomas Jefferson, if you really want to know what they think.


Actual Marxists do not like liberals: How to Combat Liberalism
 
2014-07-14 10:52:45 AM  

yakmans_dad: Why isn't it "smug" when a conservative sneers at a liberal?


they are in a lower caste
 
2014-07-14 10:56:01 AM  
Yeah, Google is pretty much the  opposite of 'created by public money'.

The poured a farkton of private money into making a publicly-supported project that was all but useless to the average person and making it actually  function on a basic level.  The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

// In fairness, calling Salon "Liberal logic" as if it's representative is sort of like calling NRO representative of right-wing logic.  This isn't really coming from the actual-party-supported-statements corner of the internet, this is the special ed class shared with Drudge and the unskewed guy and occasionally Slate.
 
2014-07-14 10:57:35 AM  

Skarekrough: I_Am_Weasel: This is the first I've heard of this and I've been at the meetings.

The thing is that at the meetings only stuff on the docket gets discussed.

You need to go to the meeting at Applebee's AFTER the meetings where they discuss what's going to be on the docket for next week.  That's when they put together the list and decide how it's going to play out.

They've got a deal where they'll honor the $.50 wings and $1 drafts deal they do on Tuesday night.


this explains why so many of the ideas are so terrible, it's a reflection of the diet
 
2014-07-14 10:57:57 AM  
Well, someone on the left finally matched the stupidity of the teabaggers. I'll be damned.
 
2014-07-14 10:59:08 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.


lol
 
2014-07-14 11:00:35 AM  
Oh, look. A troll headline to a garbage article on a website nobody here seems to like gets greened and generates well over 100 comments.

Since Fark's primary guideline for greening things on this tab seems solely to be the amount of froth it will generate, can somebody explain to me why there's a de facto ban on sites like Free Republic? If you're going to go retard with this tab to generate page hits, why not just go full retard and drop the pretensions?
 
2014-07-14 11:00:36 AM  

neenerist: MithrandirBooga: amusing it would be today if someone tried suing a company for including a web browser with its operating system for free

In the Internet's early days of course Microsoft attempted to leverage its overwhelming market position to 'extend' web standards in proprietary ways they owned. It seems silly now because they failed. Truly market competitive OSes didn't exist yet.


Even with the DoJ decision, IE6 was still the de facto web standard through the first half of the 2000s. The court case did NOTHING to change things. What made a difference was that IE6 was allowed to stagnate for half a decade, which gave Firefox an opening when it was ready to release a stable 1.0 version in late 2004. That's what makes the software business different. A lazy monopolist can easily have a competitor come out of nowhere because the barriers to entry for software are relatively low for most common apps (something like Photoshop is a different matter), and a web browser is something that is especially easy for open source projects like Webkit and Mozilla to give the big boys a run for their money.

It was literally the worst thing to base an anti-trust trial around, because the free market resolved itself in a matter of years once Microsoft let the ethnology stagnate because of their monopoly position.
 
2014-07-14 11:02:53 AM  

Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility.  But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies).  There are just more rules involved to "defend" the "public" from private abuse.

This would be especially useful in the case of telcom companies as a way to strengthen net neutrality rules.

But that's just me.  I do not speak for anyone but myself.


Quotes in the wrong place, buddy.
 
2014-07-14 11:03:05 AM  
They have already bought the agencies that exercise any control over them, much like Brawndo buying the FDA.
 
2014-07-14 11:04:13 AM  
We need to balance the needs of the one with the needs of the society. Dystopia lies at the extremes of both.
 
2014-07-14 11:05:08 AM  

Ambivalence: I think the internet should, itself, be classified as a public utility. But that doesn't mean it should be nationalized since, as we all know, private companies can own public utilities (electric companies, water utilities, trash disposal, they are often owned by private companies). There are just more rules involved to defend the "public" from private abuse.


This I can support.

Quantumbunny: Do you honestly think those bookstores or video stores would have survived either way? Hell, look at Lowe's, Home depot, and Ace... have you see a hardware store recently that isn't one of them? I haven't. I still see bookstores on a regular basis, both in small towns like Santa Fe and in larger ones like Denver. I don't think I've seen a mom and pop hardware store in over a decade. What about music stores? Aside from used ones I haven't seen a CD/Tape/record store in awhile. Even those chains went away.


I've been in two hardware stores that aren't on your list.  One was specialized in plumbing and was obviously aimed at professionals.  The tool I was after was stored in back with no indication that the store carried it--if you didn't ask you would never know.  A day earlier I hadn't even known there was such a tool.  Customer support told me about it, the local Home Depot directed me to the specialty place so I went and asked.

The second one is more general but again seems more directed at pros than the average DIYer.  I'm batting 0 for 3 on finding what I want there, though.
 
2014-07-14 11:06:28 AM  

Why are we getting Politics links (and their associated whackjobs) in the Geek tab?

 
2014-07-14 11:06:43 AM  

Mad_Radhu: MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.

Which was kind of hilarious in hindsight, because Microsoft's own arrogant failure to update their browser substantially after they took over the market is what really gave upstarts like Firefox and Chrome a chance to end the Microsoft monopoly on the internet. It was basically a textbook case of the free market self correcting. I'm generally for the government helping regulate monopolies, but the Microsoft case was just idiotic and had no real impact on anything, especially since EVERY current OS includes a bundled default browser.

At least it didn't go quite as full derp as the EU decision, which adds a stupid browser ballot during setup, even though customers will get asked to download and install Chrome every time they go to Google's homepage. As far as antitrust litigation goes, the Microsoft cases were the worst wastes of time ever.


IIRC the major issue with the MS trial was that they were bundling their web server with everything they sold, not just their server products, no less.  And selling the Netscape web server was Netscape's business model, not selling browsers, so MS really was killing them with the OS/web server bundle; the battle was never about browsers.

There was a time when people were trying to sell browsers and those companies are long gone...MS and Google can afford to give stuff away so that  is still kinda a monopoly of two...  Linux and the Mozilla people are the real heroes of this story.
 
2014-07-14 11:10:47 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Doc Daneeka: I certainly don't think they should be nationalized, but Amazon's monopolistic tendencies (particularly WRT the book market) and their Wal-Mart-like strong-arming of suppliers/publishers does concern me, and cannot be good for consumers in the long run.

I've been a customer of Amazon back since they only sold books, but as they have grown more and more powerful I have been more supportive of alternatives.  Competition is needed.

Hatchette is a hilarious example for people to keep bringing up, since they plead guilty to conspiring to fix e-book prices with other publishers. In my eyes, Amazon is somewhat forgiven for playing hardball because their opponent has already fought dirty and been called out by the DoJ. Hatchette isn't some innocent little mom and pop business, but rather is a huge publisher who fought tooth and nail to screw customers out of their cash by keeping prices artificially high.


I didn't bring up the example of Hachette, you did.  I was referring to Amazon's business practices generally.

The antitrust case is an interesting one.  The publishers should certainly not have colluded to fix prices, but on the other hand, it's worth noting that they did so in an attempt to break Amazon's control of the market and actually introduce competition (in the form of Apple).  The publishers were in the wrong, but that doesn't mean I think Amazon were "the good guys."  There aren't really any good guys in that dispute, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, the ebook industry is again the subject of antitrust investigations, this time with Amazon the subject.

In some respects I think that supporting Amazon in these disputes is a sort of faustian bargain.  Consumers may benefit in the short-term from Amazon's hard-line and deep discounting, but at the expense of handing them ever-greater leverage and control over an entire industry.  And when Amazon eventually has de facto control over the entire book industry, from negotiating with authors, to publishing, to promotion, to retail - will that be good for consumers then?  When everyone is locked-in to the Kindle ecosystem and there aren't viable alternatives or real competition?
 
2014-07-14 11:13:45 AM  
The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?
 
2014-07-14 11:15:21 AM  

cig-mkr: The government can't even keep backup e-mails at the IRS, and you want them to regulate the internet?


Yes. How hard is that to understand? It's time to rein in the Wild West.
 
2014-07-14 11:16:29 AM  

meat0918: WTF?

Is this "Liberal Logic" something Republicans do to help them sleep at night?


Nope, it's their idea of a laxative.  Since they are all constipated old farts, they tell these stories to each other and shiat their pants.  Saves them a few bucks a month and they don't have to have the black nurse give their white ass an enema anymore and prove they are just runny little shiats.
 
2014-07-14 11:17:08 AM  

Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol


The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.
 
2014-07-14 11:17:18 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Well, someone on the left finally matched the stupidity of the teabaggers. I'll be damned.


Yes! And now, let us celebrate like the teabaggers and raise this brilliant individual up on a pedestal to be admired by all!

Oh wait
 
2014-07-14 11:17:32 AM  

Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.


This is a front runner for "the dumbest thing posted on the internet today".
 
2014-07-14 11:23:16 AM  

yakmans_dad: Cletus C.: INeedAName: smashyou: What the hell is this article? I'm one of those super-libby libs, and if some farktard started with this shiat in my presence I'd whack him upside the head for stoopid. Is this just an elaborate troll/strawman by the secret-conservative Salon?

Author makes sense about how broadband internet ought to be a public utility, but that is a settled matter among non-idiots last I checked. How he makes the stretch from "Google uses the internet" to "Nationalization of private companies because children" is beyond me.

/I'm a hoar for troll bait, what can I say

The difference between Cons and Libs - when a Lib says something, we don't mind disagreeing.

Just one of the many things that makes you superior. And smug.

[raised hand]

Why isn't it "smug" when a conservative sneers at a liberal?


Obviously because liberals are intellectually superior. What conservatives do is called derp.
 
2014-07-14 11:25:29 AM  

skozlaw: an somebody explain to me why there's a de facto ban on sites like Free Republic? If you're going to go retard with this tab to generate page hits, why not just go full retard and drop the pretensions?


For the same reason that "porn stars" don't refer to themselves as "whores".
 
2014-07-14 11:28:02 AM  

mjbok: Headso: Jim_Callahan: The modern internet owes its existence to the Google corporation to a FAR greater degree than the opposite.

lol

The original statement wasn't mine, but I don't see how it is LOL worthy.  Google, as a company, probably had more to do with shaping the current internet than any other publicly known company.  Google wouldn't have existed without the internet, but Google is now a verb for a reason.


The part in bold is what makes it lol worthy.
 
2014-07-14 11:29:53 AM  

MindStalker: damageddude: It wasn't that long ago where Microsoft was the monopoly

Nobody (that was anybody) wanted Microsoft broken up or owned by the government. People were just saying that they needed more oversight and forced to stop their arguably illegal bundling of products.


IIRC, the government initially wanted Microsoft broken into two (an OS company and a company that sold everything else).
 
Displayed 50 of 280 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report