What’s Wrong with the World

We need to consider antitrust enforcement against the tech giants. Also, a friend of mind thinks that since tech giants function like public utilities, they should be subject to regulation.

From a legal perspective I think there is something to be said concerning entities like Twitter, Facebook, and Patreon banning people for entirely individual, ideological reasons.

My understanding there is that they are legally trying to have it both ways--both operating as "not responsible for what is posted" because they are legally "merely platforms," but also closely censoring content and even the other personal affiliations of their users as if they are actually responsible for and producing the content. David French (if I recall correctly) had a fascinating analysis of how this is legally incoherent, since Congress exempted such entities from being liable for the content posted on their sites only on the assumption that they were *not* carefully monitoring, censoring, and hence being treated as responsible for the content--in other words, on the assumption that they were a mere platform and ideologically neutral. Apparently Facebook has made legally incoherent arguments in court in precisely these areas.

How, or if, a consideration like that would apply to the hosting of apps by the Apple store I have no idea.

"We need to consider antitrust enforcement against the tech giants."

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/should-we-regulate-big-tech/

When a pro-corporate house organ like Imprimis is putting out feelers in that direction it indicates that even they believe that there might actually be some fire where we see that smoke coming from. About bloody time.

Having said that, what Zingales proposes as solutions in this piece are pretty weak tea. I find it interesting, for instance, that he bewails the market distortion on evidence in Big Tech's power, but when we Front Porch types point out the same sort of thing going on in, say, Big Agra, the similar complaints are casually dismissed. So the fact that the largest four smartphone sellers control 90% of the market is problematic, while the fact that the top four agricultural companies control 80% of the food market is perfectly fine, even when the mutual back-scratching of Big Agra and the USDA is pointed out. Got it.

A conservative philosophy prof I know, who leans slightly libertarian but with a strong agrarian/distributist streak, suggests that lessons can be learned here by taking a look at how the railroad companies grew in the post-CW era, and how they were subsequently handled. He believes that in many ways the situations run parallel.

Regarding "antitrust enforcement against the tech giants" -- as the resident 'pro-corporate shill around here, I'll bite and defend big tech. I'm not sure I see the consumer harm from "the largest four smartphone sellers control[ling] 90% of the market." The question for antitrust economics and law is how does such control hurt consumers -- are these smartphone sellers conspiring to unfairly jack up prices? Stifle innovation? Ask yourselves -- have smartphones over the past five to ten years become cheaper with better features? I think the question answers itself.

As for the big social media platforms and search engines -- what is the harm to consumers with Facebook being so big? Why does anyone have to be on Facebook in the first place? The answer, of course, is that no one has to be on Facebook (or Twitter.) Do search engines exist in addition to Google? Of course they do. What's the harm to me if Google bans my website from a search?

I do think Lydia's point is much more interesting -- if these various 'platforms' have avoided libel lawsuits because they've argued they are merely platforms for the facilitation of various viewpoints, then it does seem incoherent to at the same time be censoring viewpoints they don't like.

Quite frankly, I like the Ben Op ideas of people like Jordan Peterson -- if Patreon is going to be ideologically silly, then create an alternative to Patreon. I think we need more alternatives to the big players but we will get those alternatives via consumer choice, not the heavy hand of government regulation.

What's the harm to me if Google bans my website from a search?

Well, actually, there could be a lot of harm. If you're making money by attracting people to your website, and most of your customers do use Google, then you get fewer hits and fewer customers. Pretty simple. If you're a writer who gets paid by the page hit, you get less pay. If you're running a ministry and Google bans your website, your message reaches far fewer people, whom your goal was to help via the Internet.

Obviously Google's demoting much less banning particular search results *does* make a difference. That is why social conservatives would be happy if they would ban p*rn results--because it would make a difference both to the number of people exposed to filth and to the money made by the producers thereof.

It doesn't follow that any particular regulation is required to force Google not to ban certain search results or Apple not to ban certain apps, but we shouldn't pretend it isn't harming the people banned. Of course it is.

"The question for antitrust economics and law is how does such control hurt consumers"

That's A question but not the only question. Look at some of the legislation related to the railroad companies and you'll find that other negative externalities were involved, not just those related to price, as it was perceived that monopolistic practices have further effects downstream. The idea that actual monopolies are "bad," yet moving as legally close to them as possible is "good" seems odd, to say the least.

That certain multi-level marketing companies make money while being awfully close to, but not quite, pyramid schemes, is hardly a point in their favor. The same is true for the "almost" monopoly.

"If you're making money by attracting people to your website, and most of your customers do use Google, then you get fewer hits and fewer customers. Pretty simple."

That is a fair point, but why should anyone have an expectation that Google exists to help them make money? Google exists to help Google make money. Likewise with Apple.

On the other hand, going back to the question of liability, I'm intrigued with this idea: suppose, for example, you run a auto repair store that advertises on Google and an insane left-winger discovers you donate to an organization that is fighting against the "gay" agenda (adoption issues, marriage, you name it.) They get you banned from Google for "hate" and you lose 40% of your business due to the ban -- now we come back to the whole issue of defamation of character and whether or not Google should be held liable for content on their platform. If they are responsible for what goes on or off and such decision can have such dire financial consequences, then perhaps there should be consumer tort options available to those who are harmed by these type of actions. That's why I have to admit I'm cheering this lawsuit which is sort of indirectly related to these issues:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lawsuit-claims-splc-abetted-theft-spread-lies-to-destroy-lawyer-for-thought-crime/

That is a fair point, but why should anyone have an expectation that Google exists to help them make money? Google exists to help Google make money. Likewise with Apple.

Here I'm really going to have to push back, Jeff. Google's search engine *obviously* makes money *because* people use it to make money themselves. It's supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. If businesses couldn't use search engines, and ipso facto the biggest, most popular search engine out there, to make money, they wouldn't have a reason to make web sites! The entire Internet and its relationship to commerce is based upon the interlocking interests of various groups of people and ultimately based upon the desire to get the word out, to attract people's attention, and so forth. That's what it's all about. That's how Google itself makes money through its search engine--because people want to use it to find things and to make things findable, and because Google can then monetize those desires of sellers, content producers, and searchers in various ways (adds, tracking, etc.) We shouldn't pretend otherwise. Google exists to help businesses make money *so that* Google can make money.

If businesses do not have that expectation, they have little reason to use the Internet to advertise their business, and we return to the year 1988 or thereabouts.

Saying "Why should you expect that Google exists to help you make money" is a bit like saying, "Why should you expect that billboard companies exist to help you make money?" or "Why should you expect that stores exist for people to buy things from?" or "Why should you expect that Internet hosting companies exist for businesses to make business sites on them and make money therefrom?" Helping businesses to make money by advertising their businesses is an integral part of the business model of search engines.

I tend to look at the internet as a big commercial river in which a few megacorporations own all the locks and arbitrarily they decide whose boats go through and whose don't and when challenged they just tell you you are free to take your 1000-foot boat down the many alternative creeks.

"It's supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. If businesses couldn't use search engines, and ipso facto the biggest, most popular search engine out there, to make money, they wouldn't have a reason to make web sites!"

Again, this is fair...although I'd be curious to see actual data on the subject. What percentage of small businesses rely on Google to bring them sales? Has anyone looked at this question? If Google goes away tomorrow, will the neighborhood pizza joint, auto repair shop, and barber close up shop because no one will be able to find them? I'm not being snarky -- I really wonder how many people rely on Google to shop at a brick and mortar store and what those stores would say about how important Google is to driving their sales. This also speaks to Scott W's point -- is it true that there is only one or two commercial rivers on the web or can businesses survive using the creeks?

I think the answers to these questions, at least with respect to search engines, would speak to many of the issues around anti-trust.

"a few megacorporations own all the locks and arbitrarily they decide whose boats go through and whose don't and when challenged they just tell you you are free to take your 1000-foot boat down the many alternative creeks."

Big Tech has this tendency towards monopolization baked in. See Jonathan Taplin's Move Fast and Break Things and Franklin Foer's World Without Mind, among others.

If Google goes away tomorrow, will the neighborhood pizza joint, auto repair shop, and barber close up shop because no one will be able to find them?

It would certainly make things harder. People look up all those local businesses on their phones, etc. Even I at this point hardly ever use a telephone book. I find the phone numbers of all local businesses on the Internet to call them, figure out how to get there, compare prices and services. Especially to read business reviews. I even use Google to shop for the cheapest gas prices in my neighborhood.

But all the more so when we are talking about businesses and non-profit ministries whose *whole product* is ideas! If you are a speaker, whether for profit or non-profit, if you sell self-help books, if you are a Christian ministry trying to teach people various things or trying to change people's minds, the Information Age is obviously where it's at. Information is what you are selling (if for profit) or trying desperately to give away (if not for profit). The majority of your consumers are located far away from you. The Internet, including the ability of people to do searches and find your site, is essential to that business model. And the same is true of Youtube artists and probably lots of other examples I'm not thinking of. PragerU has certainly had its reach of ideas shortened by the fact that Youtube has blocked its political videos under "restricted mode."

And then there are the larger businesses with whom one might nonetheless sympathize--Hobby Lobby, for example. Businesses that have both bricks and mortar and on-line presences, that could be impacted by ideological manipulation of the Internet, bans, etc. What if a CEO of some large-ish business that depends crucially on Internet sales made an un-PC comment, and Google said, "Fire this guy or we will block your business from searches"? Or Facebook said, "Fire this guy or we will take down your large business's FB page?"

*Of course* there is an impact. And of course there is power. Gigantic. It doesn't do free marketers like you and me any good to deny the realities of such things.

What's the harm to me if Google bans my website from a search?

I have to agree with Lydia here, and it doesn't depend only on the fact that Google's making money off its operation depends on other businesses making money off of their presence in Google's tentacles. If I run a non-profit trying to reach X audience that I think needs my services, the fact that I pay Joe Smartz to design a web-site and pay Little Tech to host it for me (and none of my money goes to Google directly), it matters a heck of a lot if none of my intended audience can find me on Google. The mere fact that most people (and, thus, presumably most of my intended audience) use Google much of the time for searches affects me whether I like it or not.

If Google goes away tomorrow, will the neighborhood pizza joint, auto repair shop, and barber close up shop because no one will be able to find them?

It's not that "no one will be able to find them", it's that it will be distinctly harder to do, until someone fills up Google's shoes and does what they are doing. I rely on Google (and Yelp, and others) for reviews of local brick and mortar shops and services all the time and it would hurt any of those businesses if Google had blocked such reviews on ideological grounds. We had a new phone book dropped off on my driveway this week, and I and my kids just laughed at it: first because (now living in a very small town) it was tiny, and then because somebody is still making money selling phone books. I suspect that if I need to find something, I would have more luck moseying over to main street and just asking a few shop owners where to look. I did just that at the local hardware store - established 1919, as it says on the front door.

While I generally back free market, I don't do so mindlessly and I think there is a role for restraint here. I don't know if mere anti-trust rules are the mechanism for this particular restraint, or something more general. I do feel that there is a sense in which "the Internet" is more like "the atmosphere" or "the river" or "the electromagnetic spectrum" than like "the pipeline", and it might need to be addressed more in terms of a public good than a complex of private goods. Sure, Google itself isn't "the Internet", but I suspect that if we first recognize the internet as a public good, that might require as a consequence certain restraints on how players can interact on it. I am just proposing this as a possibility.

The o.p. wasn't intended to call for regulation, just to clarify, but rather to serve as the zillionth wake-up call to anyone who is still in doubt of the intentions of the homosexualist left. I don't think I know enough about the matter to know what regulation to call for, and I'm not sure Facebook's legal incoherence (which I've mentioned) would apply to Apple in the case in the o.p. even if that legal incoherence were disallowed.

I also wanted to point out that the activist himself says that he sees Apple's banning the app as a "step in the direction" of banning such ministries directly using the power of the state. This is true. Law follows culture. If most people yawn over Apple's banning the app and say, "Yeah, they're a bunch of bigots anyway, good riddance," then laws banning their ministry directly are not that far away.

There are still, believe it or not, plenty of confused Christians out there who think that what we really need to be talking about most is how mean Christians are to gays or have been to gays and how we need to apologize for this in retrospect, be super-sensitive, etc. Some months ago I put up a post on Facebook stating that homosexual practice is a sin, as a mark of solidarity with another person who had been put in "Facebook jail" for doing so. I invited my Facebook "friends" to do likewise, on the "use your freedom or lose it" principle. As it happened, I didn't get put in Facebook "jail," presumably because I'm not being e-stalked by whoever is Facebook-stalking the other guy. These things are pretty random.

I did, however, get privately lectured by someone for having put up the post. The private lecture consisted of talk about walking beside homosexual people, not making them feel like a Christian friend finds them disgusting, and so forth. The entire thrust, for this person as for too many others, is upon the idea that even just openly stating the truth that their activity is a sin is going to be hurtful, make them feel unloved, and harm our relationships with them. Avoiding *that* is what we are supposed to focus on. It's the most important thing.

There is something nigh unto zero understanding there that it is most loving to speak clearly on these subjects and unloving to mute the message or speak with an uncertain sound. And there is zero understanding of the persecution that is arising and already all around us for those who show love to gender-confused and homosexual people by telling them the truth forthrightly and pointing the way out--the banning of such efforts that is huge on the horizon.

I also had a debate or two on FB when the CA bill was in the works with those who literally refused to believe that Christian proclamation would be banned under such a law. This story makes it clearer than ever that it would.

So I'm mostly just trying to raise awareness and also encourage people to stand up and be counted while simultaneously pointing out that the cost is getting higher and higher.

the idea that even just openly stating the truth that their activity is a sin is going to be hurtful, make them feel unloved, and harm our relationships with them. Avoiding *that* is what we are supposed to focus on. It's the most important thing.

So let's see how that plays out in another arena:

Pre-meditated murder is a sin."

No, No! You mustn't say such things! Even just openly stating the truth that their activity is a sin is going to be hurtful, make them feel unloved, and harm our relationships with them. Avoiding *that* is what we are supposed to focus on. It's the most important thing. Because making them feel loved is more important than stopping the murders, or making them regret their behavior, or converting them to the truth.

Hmmmmm, maybe not.

Too many Christians today think of the prohibitions against homosexual activity as incomprehensible, black-box rules made by God. Even if they affirm them because God said it, the natural law connection is lost on them. God might as well have said that we are forbidden to eat kidney beans. If he said it clearly and emphatically enough, this type of Christian would accept it, but bemusedly. And it would be hard to get up much enthusiasm for making it clear to kidney bean eaters that they are sinning.

Speaking of actual legal bans on speech (that would in effect also ban particular ministries that necessarily use that speech). There is a what trans activists hope will be a precedent setting case banning "transphobic" speech like "transwomen are not women" in Canada. The case is Oger v Whatcott. Whatcott may not be as sympathetic of a figure as say Jack Phillips, but Oger is one heck of a woman hating bully with an axe to grind.

"The o.p. wasn't intended to call for regulation, just to clarify, but rather to serve as the zillionth wake-up call to anyone who is still in doubt of the intentions of the homosexualist left."

Augusto Del Noce called this 50 years ago: the corporate technocratic right has harnessed the energy of the cultural left for its own purposes. This explains why corporate America is so "pro-gay," and why the cultural left is willing to give "the 1%" a pass, provided they go along with its agenda.

Because of its commitment to the Sexual Revolution the cultural left misses — either by being blind to it or downplaying it — the role that the corporate right has played in the furtherance of “sexual liberation.” Likewise the mainstream right, given its commitment to corporate capitalism, fails to see the corrosive effect of the same on what it values culturally, and thus serves as a (semi) willing accomplice.

Corporate America is not the traditionalist conservative's friend. (Talk about needing a zillionth wake-up call).

the corporate technocratic right has harnessed the energy of the cultural left for its own purposes.

I'd be more inclined to say that the cultural left has harnessed the energy of the corporate technocratic class for *its* own purposes. In fact, not to be crass, but I'm strongly inclined to think that there's a lot of money to be made by being conservative and not being crazy. The trans agenda alone is expensive, and ordinary people don't like it. Family-friendly movies, if well-made, tend to make a lot of money at the box office. (Think The Incredibles, for example.)

But really, which has "harnessed" which is a chicken and egg problem for one simple reason: Many of our big corporate guys just *are* leftists themselves. As people. They are people. They aren't just some kind of impersonal force to be harnessed. They've been raised in various ways--elite leftist private schools or leftist public schools and colleges--and they've embraced these values, just like anybody else. Then they end up with a lot of money and power, and they use it to promote what they really believe.

This is what I always point out to would-be monarchists: Raise a prince to be a lefty and you'll end up with a lefty king. Whoop-de-doo. How exciting. Our corporate lefties are our activist princes, princesses, and kings. They really aren't a separate entity from the cultural left.

Remember when we use to hear "moderates" or "centrists" describing themselves as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? You don't really hear that very much anymore. Not because the species it describes has gone away, but because it's become something like the elites' default position.

"which has 'harnessed' which is a chicken and egg problem"

Yes and no. The relationship has become symbiotic, but it took a while for corporate America to fully embrace the cultural revolution of the 60's. Of course this doesn't mean that they weren't on board with certain aspects of it from the get-go, as both Del Noce (European right) and Lasch (U.S. left) saw.

One of the problems that the "liberal" critics of Big Tech run into is that they want to condemn the fiscal libertarianism of the tech giants while upholding their commitment to sexual libertarianism. From the conservative perspective this creates a certain inconsistency or incoherence in their critique.

but it took a while for corporate America to fully embrace the cultural revolution of the 60's.

And I would say the reasons for that are two-fold. For one thing, much of the silliness of the cultural revolution really was costly, in real-dollar terms. Even forcing (yes, I'm going to say this) women on the workforce has cost something financial in terms of morale and workplace cohesion, loss of efficiency with women's generally less focused approach to work, desire to have children, distractions with children, etc. Now all the constant worries about sexual harassment are costly. The homosexual agenda was costly as well. In general, having gay days and so forth distracts from making cereal, or whatever the actual product is of the company. And in many ways the common man rebelled with his pocketbook when ideological smut and nonsense were forced upon him and his children. (See Disney boycotts.) So originally the corporate moguls saw this and resisted.

The second reason was just purely generational. It took time for the cultural rot to spread to the schools and for the next gen of corporate moguls to be fully indoctrinated lefties. Now that has happened, so they pretend that all the ideological rah-rah is good for business, because they are committed to it whether it's good for business or not. This is going to become more and more strained with the "trans" agenda, but I'm sure they will find some way to say that hiring and promoting men in drag or "agenders" or people who change their gender from one day to the next is good for the bottom line.

They really aren't a separate entity from the cultural left.

That's what I was going to say. There may be a tiny few corporate moguls who were not educated in the universities, but they are effectively irrelevant. Almost all were trained to be leftists in the wholly-owned subsidiary that is the university system. The hippies of the 60's finally made it to be in charge of corporate America in the 90's, and they never left off their sexual revolution "ideals" in the least. All they did, upon taking charge, was make a pretense of it being "good for corporate America" to undermine sexual normalcy. As for "the numbers", once you have enough corporations toeing the line on the gay agenda, THEN it really is "good business" for the rest to go along, but only because standing out from the crowd as a hold-out is going to look bad, and then generate costly lawsuits and such - not because it is actually worthwhile in a wholesome sense.

This is going to become more and more strained with the "trans" agenda, but I'm sure they will find some way to say that hiring and promoting men in drag or "agenders" or people who change their gender from one day to the next is good for the bottom line.

I am hoping that the attempt on this is what breaks the camel's back. The problem for them is that even the liberals are admitting to the incoherence problem, and that they cannot limit it to trans because the argument extends to ANY version of "self" that a person wants to claim is "valid": "I AM an airline pilot, because that's what I believe in my innermost self, and nothing you can say will make that not true." Ed Feser's recent post is on the notice of liberals about the problem:

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-sexual-revolution-devours-its.html#more

So if we are lucky, the post-post-modernists will push the line so far that even typical liberals will repudiate it and say no. It's not impossible, at least, though I grant it is looking less and less likely.

~~All they did, upon taking charge, was make a pretense of it being "good for corporate America" to undermine sexual normalcy.~~

When has it been otherwise? Corporate America has always been anti-traditional. It's just that right now it's so blatant that even some of the corporate cheerleaders are finally sitting up and taking notice. You can't yell "Have it your way!" for 60 years and not expect cultural repercussions. So-called sexual liberation and consumerism are intertwined, and have been for a long time, but now the beast has finally shown itself.

So-called sexual liberation and consumerism are intertwined,

Of course they are, because vices generally help each other undermine virtue.

But that doesn't mean that they are intertwined at the foundation and theory. Pretty sure the beginnings of the consumerist (and financial shenanigan) culture preceded the sexual liberation movement by a good half-century if not more. And the fact that the demi-gods of of the finance-economy have recognized in sexual license a number of helpful trends to line their pockets and cement their power doesn't mean that sexual licence necessarily follows from bad morals in the economic sphere.

At any rate, Satan is behind them both, and it is pointless to charge at one or the other windmill without recognizing the power behind the throne.

"Pretty sure the beginnings of the consumerist (and financial shenanigan) culture preceded the sexual liberation movement by a good half-century if not more."

I was implying that they've been intertwined since the Sexual Revolution. But also remember that the advertising industry learned fairly early on that "sex sells." Sexual liberation opened new vistas for the use of sex in advertising, and as the industry had already been pushing the envelope in that direction it was primed and ready to latch onto that "liberating" energy. As a result you have today's advertising in which "sex sells" has gone steroidal.