I’m as anti-monopoly as the next guy, but I don’t think the following are necessary good examples:<p>> Apple has repeatedly refused to allow law enforcement to access criminals’ devices<p>Creating a backdoor for government device access enables turnkey oppression against individuals and marginalized groups, from enemies both foreign and domestic. I can see why this rhetoric would be mildly convincing to a senator, but as for me I want my device to be as protected as the contents of my brain.<p>> Google abandoned a contract to deliver the Pentagon drone AI technology<p>I <i>absolutely</i> do not want AI in drones, I barely even want drones to exist at all. The US is flying these around the world attempting to dispassionately assassinate people, and they often get it wrong. AI, best case, just makes this more palatable than it already is.<p>> Microsoft has maintained “strategic partner” status with a Chinese drone and imaging technology firm<p>Oh really? I thought we liked AI in drones.<p>> Facebook enables and profits from the harassment of victims of horrific shootings and other violent crimes<p>This absolutely sucks, but like what do you expect them to do? Is this an argument that FB can’t handle moderation at scale, or are they realistically expected by the author to prevent all harassment (or just this specific arbitrary type)?
Some of these points are reasonable, but most are silly and presented completely out of context. Apple Maps doesn't incorporate the latest regional control of the Ukraine War? DoD personnel upload their fitbit-connected GPS data to strava? Apple "refuses" to install back doors for the government?<p>An intern at a lobbying group was tasked with writing a hit piece to circulate amongst LAs, and here it is. Maybe they should have stuck with the points about colluding with the Chinese government.
I hate it when someone seems to be trying to get me to have an opinion about something without really informing me in any way.<p>This is true regardless of how I feel about "Big Tech Monopolies". And I don't really know how to feel. I don't work at one, I don't particularly like or dislike them. I vaguely dislike Mark Zuckerberg - there's all my bias out in the open.<p>Based on my bias, I should be sympathetic to this article. But I just find it annoying. You don't get my support by making vaguely hostile grunts while gesticulating at Facebook. You don't get it by reciting a laundry list of bad things your selected corporate targets have done or seemed to have done (what about, say, Exxon Mobil?).<p>Something about this article just screams bad faith and ulterior motives. I think it's the general hostile mood toward "Big Tech Monopolies" combined with a lack of any logic or motivation for that hostility. Like, 99% of the stuff they're complaining about has nothing to do with monopoly behavior. They're just throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.<p>Who wants to bet that "American Economic Liberties Project" is just a front for some <i>other</i> type of vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity? One of those "Patriotic Americans For Truth And The Children" type organizations that's really just a coalition of a few obscenely rich entities that want a particular policy enacted to harm their enemies?
Harry Truman said in 1945 about the atomic bomb, "We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies". I feel the same way about FAANG and Silicon Valley as a whole (and Wall Street, and Hollywood, and SpaceX/Tesla, and the Ivy League), that they are in the United States.<p>That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do. That doesn't mean I can't or won't decry their putting thumbs on scales toward a certain type of <i>bien-pensant</i> ideology. That does mean that, overall, I am very, very glad that they are American instead of Russian, Chinese, or even British, French, or German.
The Big Tech in question: Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook. I'm surprised that Microsoft is in the list, usually these accusations of "monopoly" don't include Microsoft, and I'm never too sure why, because if you accuse Amazon, Facebook and Google of monopoly, Microsoft has them all beat in terms of market concentration, just not in the same markets, and not in social media.<p>Ever since the Microsoft anti-trust trial, I've been very suspicious of think-tank and "industry" groups, on any side of these kinds of issues. Wikipedia says "The AELP is funded in part by the Omidyar Network." I'm not sure what that means.
How about the single family that owns Fidelity and probably has significantly more power than multiple tech companies. Or the Koch family.<p>Consider that you might be focusing on the tech companies just because they are highly visible. If the goal is to determine what endangers American security, a consideration of where power is really concentrated would be worthwhile.
Purely money making, business oriented, billionaire oligarch-run,100% opaque big tech deciding day to day proceedings is a serious concern. On the other hand snooping by governments is an issue but it is an elected body and replacble should they go wrong. Either way privacy is screwed for users.
Revolting.<p>"In 2020, Apple was lobbying on behalf of forced labor in China, attempting to weaken the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
In 2021, 7 Apple suppliers in China were found to have participated in labor programs suspected of using Uyghur forced labor, including Lens Technology, one of Apple’s longest-running and highest-profile suppliers – which also supplies Amazon and Tesla."
i don't care about security. I am not losing sleep over china. I care about being censored for talking about covid or other issues. These big tech companies ban accounts for politically motivated reasons or no reason ,with no recourse and few or no good alternatives.