SENATE BILL: Breaking Big Corporations Act (Passed)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I expect worse consumer experiences due to loss of economies of scale.
I'd much rather we treated these firms as utilities.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Could you elaborate on what treating big companies like utilities would exactly involve? I am certainly open to that as a compromise solution if everyone is on board and it ends up being the simpler route.

I do worry about economies of scale, hence the very protectionist section 4 when generally I lean more on the free trade side of things (though not with China since they cheat). The objective of that section is to make sure that the new Atlasian tech sector is not simply captured by a bunch of foreign corporations, which would be even worse. Sillicon Valley is still a big contributor to the Atlasian economy after all; it's just that it would be better for everyone if those companies were all separate.

I think that treating them as utilities would involve regulations that would restrict their ability to use their large size against competition in interest of the public good. That likely entails restrictions on the behavior of companies above a certain size.

I don't agree that we'd be better off if they were all separate because their size provides convenience for most consumers. Youtube paired with Google means that the platform doesn't need to be profitable to continue existing, something that has immense positive cultural significance. It means I don't have to log into a separate Youtube account just to post a comment. The Youtube algorithm has introduced me to numerous videos I like, to the point I mainly don't actually search things - I just reload the home page and see what they bring up. Due to being logged in gmail I save time and effort in other areas.

Breaking all that up is bad. It's not going to help many people at the end of the day. Speaking as an user of these services, I don't think it'd be good for me. And restricting foreign companies from operating on Atlasian soil only makes it worse, by narrowing the range of options we'd have in the aftermath to a series of subpar options that are less valuable than the sum of their parts.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Breaking up these firms is definitely well-intentioned but I don't think it's practical. Nor is it ultimately going to be beneficial on net. Preserving their size while tightening regulation is my preferred route. I agree the concerns are valid, but breaking up is not a good solution in my view. Worse services, worse off business sector - hardly a winner in my view.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Could you elaborate on what treating big companies like utilities would exactly involve? I am certainly open to that as a compromise solution if everyone is on board and it ends up being the simpler route.

I do worry about economies of scale, hence the very protectionist section 4 when generally I lean more on the free trade side of things (though not with China since they cheat). The objective of that section is to make sure that the new Atlasian tech sector is not simply captured by a bunch of foreign corporations, which would be even worse. Sillicon Valley is still a big contributor to the Atlasian economy after all; it's just that it would be better for everyone if those companies were all separate.

I think that treating them as utilities would involve regulations that would restrict their ability to use their large size against competition in interest of the public good. That likely entails restrictions on the behavior of companies above a certain size.

I don't agree that we'd be better off if they were all separate because their size provides convenience for most consumers. Youtube paired with Google means that the platform doesn't need to be profitable to continue existing, something that has immense positive cultural significance. It means I don't have to log into a separate Youtube account just to post a comment. The Youtube algorithm has introduced me to numerous videos I like, to the point I mainly don't actually search things - I just reload the home page and see what they bring up. Due to being logged in gmail I save time and effort in other areas.

Breaking all that up is bad. It's not going to help many people at the end of the day. Speaking as an user of these services, I don't think it'd be good for me. And restricting foreign companies from operating on Atlasian soil only makes it worse, by narrowing the range of options we'd have in the aftermath to a series of subpar options that are less valuable than the sum of their parts.

Yeah, those are all good points, but the issue is that with a huge size comes a ton of power; an amount of power that perhaps no corporation should have.

It comes down to whether we should value the comfort of say, having everything under one umbrella vs the power that a single corporation has because of that.
 
Treating as utilities could work and be a decent compromise, but I am not sure if that would be enough (still better than the status quo).

The only other radical solution I can think of is nationalization (in fact the comparison with utilities kind of falls flat to me, since there are certainly more than a handful of utilities that should at least be partially publicly owned). Nationalization might be a policy that would be par for the course for the Labor Party, but it's not really a solution either; with the government holding way too much power over the citizenry (though nationalization could also mean bigger protections in other aspects). In any case, we can't afford to nationalize tech; not to mention I am sure that no foreign companies would want to watch stuff on a platform owned by the US government itself (even TikTok was private in theory)

If preventing large technology firms from existing means destroying a significant chunk of the utility that ordinary people derive from them, then that's not worth it. It's going to suffocate the economy and suffocate pleasure for people. We just have to live with the fact that technology firms are in a now-mature market that, like most, lends itself to consolidation. The data and tech economy is a big part of the lifeblood of the Atlasian economy. I'm all for more regulation but breaking up Big Tech goes too far.

I would say that the average person prizes convenience and ease more generally. Even if we broke up Google and Amazon and other firms, and thus severely impaired their ability to operate to a sufficient degree that the law's intention was enacted in full, new Googles and new Amazons might just rise up instead, offering the exact same product in essence - unless we destroyed them too. Google and Amazon and other firms only rose to such heights because they offered an unbeatable package for commonfolk - a service that was needed and desired. That service needs to be provided in a modern economy, and if we prevented such a service from being provided, then we are only going to lose out on the benefits, economic and otherwise, from having it in the modern age.

I don't think you intend for the working class, or anyone else, to have to waste time, effort, and (in some cases) extra money* for things they previously had taken for granted, but that is what this bill, if passed and enacted, would do.
*=no way in hell do I like the idea of a Youtube equivalent having to charge money for people to access it, but can you really rule that out here?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There's a reason they do this & it's not out of the kindness of their heart- if you're not paying for a product it's because you are the product. Youtube is made with ease of access, and with suggestions so that they can target certain content at you, get you to engage and most importantly get an accurate picture for the advertising they sell.

I think ease of access has to be weighted up with the lack of action on various pretty vile stuff from anti-vax conspiracies to neo-nazis & anti-semetic hate speech.

It's not really relevant if they aren't doing this out of good of their hearts, because businesses in general is generally driven by self-interest. And any tech firm that would replace them would also be driven by self-interest.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There's a reason they do this & it's not out of the kindness of their heart- if you're not paying for a product it's because you are the product. Youtube is made with ease of access, and with suggestions so that they can target certain content at you, get you to engage and most importantly get an accurate picture for the advertising they sell.

I think ease of access has to be weighted up with the lack of action on various pretty vile stuff from anti-vax conspiracies to neo-nazis & anti-semetic hate speech.

It's not really relevant if they aren't doing this out of good of their hearts, because businesses in general is generally driven by self-interest. And any tech firm that would replace them would also be driven by self-interest.

So just to be clear, you are okay with your data being tracked and sold by corporations?

Yes. I would, though I would also be fine with GDPR-style regulations to allow me to tell them to stop.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There's a reason they do this & it's not out of the kindness of their heart- if you're not paying for a product it's because you are the product. Youtube is made with ease of access, and with suggestions so that they can target certain content at you, get you to engage and most importantly get an accurate picture for the advertising they sell.

I think ease of access has to be weighted up with the lack of action on various pretty vile stuff from anti-vax conspiracies to neo-nazis & anti-semetic hate speech.

It's not really relevant if they aren't doing this out of good of their hearts, because businesses in general is generally driven by self-interest. And any tech firm that would replace them would also be driven by self-interest.

So just to be clear, you are okay with your data being tracked and sold by corporations?

Yes. I would, though I would also be fine with GDPR-style regulations to allow me to tell them to stop.

Would you elaborate on this?

The whole thing of data being sold and used to create customization and whatnot is a critical part of the structural infrastructure that allows this convenience to exist, and systems are ultimately sustained by infrastucture. This is basically a consumer agreeing to take part in the data ecosystem and be compensated henceforth. Without companies collecting and selling this data, it would make things considerably less efficient. It is true that if you aren't being pressed to pay for a product, then you are the product. I don't think a departure from this system would be all that good (though I am worried to some extent about the overall situation) but we can make it easier for those who want to opt out to allow them to do so. It ought to be up to them. Companies should absolutely have to ask your permission before using your data.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Alright. [exhale] This is based on a report from the House Judiciary Committee report concerning antitrust as it applies to big tech. Summary here, full report here.

Here is a very broad draft bill, with notes where I think more refinement is probably needed.

1. No company whose business consists primarily of a digital platform (DEFINE) shall operate in lines of business dependent on or interoperative with the platform.

2. No company whose business consists primarily of a digital platform shall preference itself in the sale of advertisements or in any other services provided; such companies shall also ensure adequate interoperability and data portability with competing platforms.

3. Mergers and acquisitions resulting in a significant change in market concentration under the Clayton Act (SPECIFY STATUTE?) shall be presumptively prohibited, unless the merging parties can prove that the merger would not have a significant negative impact on consumers or firms. (IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD?)

4. No contract clause mandating arbitration of disputes may apply to antitrust claims. (SPECIFY LAST PART?)

5. It is the sense of the Congress that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice should investigate (COMPANIES) for engaging in anticompetitive practices which violate (EXISTING STANDARDS? SOME COMPANIES MAY ONLY COME INTO CONFLICT WITH NEW STANDARDS ESTABLISHED HERE).

a. It is the sense of the Congress that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice should prioritize for enforcement violators whose companies make up large shares of national markets, rather than prioritizing smaller violators.

1 sounds highly questionable as currently worded.
2 is very good.
3 sounds mostly good as is. I would favor a standard de-emphasizing things besides overall consumer experiences.
4 is very good.
5 is all fine by me.

If something might be reasonably expected to be used to justify Youtube being split from Google, then it is (very likely) a suboptimal standard.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This bill has my general support as currently worded.