Who'd have thought the US senator who fist pumped Jan 6 insurrectionists would propose totally unworkable anti-Big Tech law? US Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has proposed his latest anti-Big Tech legislation: a complete ban on mergers and acquisitions for companies valued at over $100bn if it may harm competition in any way possible. The “Trust-Busting for the Twenty-First Century Act” [PDF] will “take back control from big business and return it to …
"Dumbass", "political opportunist" and "irresponsible" - Aren't those prerequisites for a successful populist career?
To appeal to the simpler parts of the population, you need simple caricatural claims and promises, and since it doesn't really matter if they are possible or not, the sky's the limit: The more outrageous your promise, the bigger the cheer.
The idea is to be seen as the badass macho guy who takes no sh!t from nobody and gets things done, as close as possible to recipe of Hollywood action film heroes.
Muskets were good enough in 1776 and should be good enough now.
I'll just leave this spoof book review about such a world here.
“A small group of woke mega-corporations control the products Americans can buy, the information Americans can receive, and the speech Americans can engage in ”
Right. Because calling for domestic terrorism and insurrection is now a right protected by the US Constitution.
Yeah.
Jackass.
Note how a GOP operative was / is all for Citizens United...until corporate rights comes down against their agenda. "Corporations are people too!" until said corporations have something to say against a GOP position, then it Cry Wolf and Evil Empires!
This is all about the GOP's belief that Big Tech is "smothering" and "censoring" right-wing speech. Now they're all against corporate power, the right to corporations to decide their own TOS, the right to corporations to decide who and what they want to support.
Shut the hell up about politics, but continue to send us the money please.
There is absolutely nothing new here. Just the standard GOP hypocrisy, we're all used to it by now.
This is all about the GOP desperately trying to stay afloat in the pool of muck that they unleashed by nominating Trump as their presidential candidate. They are starting to flail, are down to their last gasps, and it's rather fun to watch. Political Science classes world-wide are going to study it for centuries as an example of how not to run a railroad.
I'm not all that fond of the democrats, either ... lesser of two evils
"The law, were it to pass, would effectively bypass the Department of Justice, and introduce a success-based constraint on American capitalism based on a figure that Hawley has pulled from his ass. He thinks it’s great."
I'm no fan of Hawley, and I don't believe that big corporations are necessarily pure evil always, but I don't like the tone of this article. The author is telling the reader how to feel because the author doesn't trust the judgement of the readers. Spin is no substitute for debate.
It's cl;early a bonkers proposition with obvious unintended consequences, but there is a kernel of truth and sense in what he's talking about. Are there so many nutjob US politicians now that statistically, even a nutjob can manage to produce a little sense in amongst all the nutjobbery and vitriol?
What if, sometime in the future, Google and Facebook merged? Or Apple and MS? Pfiezer and Johnson & Johnson? Or Intel and AMD? Are there already laws to stop that happening?
Anonymous Coward
Q: And will said laws be applied in the USA?
A: No
The real answer is: Depends!
It depends on the Justice Department and Administration at the time.
It is important to understand the history of Anti-Trust in America. When Standard Oil was broken up, Everyone thought they were sticking it to Rockefeller. The fact was he made way more money owning majority stock in all the subsequent companies formed out of Standard Oil than he would have from a single company and he still had control!
Something similar can be said for both Boeing and AT&T's breakups too
There's definitely a place for antitrust laws and the USA isn't using them nearly enough but the legislative abuse is so deeply entrenched that I don't think one nutjob senator railing about them (ironically, from the side of the plutocracy) will make any difference
It's important to realise that what we're seeing now in the USA is the culmination of an effort to destroy the New Deal which began in 1940 (and recruited evangelists to the cause). That group gained the upper hand in 1980 with the election of Reagan and have been running rampant ever since, but history has a tendency to repeat and the New Deal short-circuited a depression which "should" have lasted 30 years if normal economic cycles had been left to play out. When the crash comes, the USA is going to hurt and unlike the last few times it's no longer the only 900 pound gorilla in the room - meaning that "if America sneezes the world catches flu" no longer applies
The revisionists tell us that the whole New Deal thing was a sham, it wasn't necessary and didn't work. What they don't talk about is that the Repbulicans did everything in their power to degrade and destroy it and mostly succeeded back in the 30s using techniques and tactics that were similar to those deployed against the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").
What's keeping the US afloat is that we have a stranglehold on the world's financial system. Everyone uses dollars for internation transactions which effectively subsidizes our deficit spending. We countrol the interbank settlement system -- SWIFT -- and can use it to weaponize currency transacttions, implmenting sanctions as we choose and crippling economies of countries we don't like. Expect all hell to break loose if this system is threatened. The problem isn't so much as we're a 900lb (230Kg) gorilla as we're an armed to the teeth gorilla and as the Chinese helpfully pointed out recently "of the 248 conflicts that have broken out world wide since 1945 the US has been involved in 201". (So pay up and shut up, suckers.....)
Hawley *did* pull that number from his ass. It *does* effectively bypass the Department of Justice. Being *over* a limit, necessarily is being more *success-based* than being *under* a limit. Author is stating the truth here.
The author could have made the link between the GOP's current attacks on corps, and the corps criticism of the GOP's voter suppression laws. The clear motive here behind the various attacks. He chose not to.
Having a debate on the merits of stating facts, is just meta-wank. Feelings don't come into it.
Please, there are no voter suppression laws, that is a FLAT OUT LIE!
You need to show/have ID to basically live your life in America. It is not a burden to show that ID to Vote!
Or do you agree with the Democrat (party of slavery/Jim Crow/KKK) that believes Black Americans are incapable of obtaining an ID? (BTW a utility bill with a matching address is considered valid ID in the GA law).
In March 2021, John Kavanagh, a Republican elected to the Arizona House of Representatives, justified restrictions on voting: "... everybody shouldn’t be voting... Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well."
And the definition of a quality vote is? One for us.
My contention with having to show ID to vote is OK if the government has made an appropriate ID free to all and easy to attain for everyone. So, you them must include those who have difficulty leaving their abode or getting to a place where they be provided with that appropriate ID. Of course, any government with the goal of voter suppression, like is being conducted in many States, is not going to do that and even if they do provide the ID the acts of decreased polls and polling hours in particular areas still acts as a massive deterrent. The GOP/Republicans know this very well and know that's the only way they win federally and in many case in particular states.
I think much of the problem with American voting goes back to defunding schools since the 1970s and other important issues, but that's just me :)
Keep track of the author and you will soon get used to the idea that this is normal for the SanFran office.
They are the Woke American propoganda arm of El Reg. (careful though, if you don't adhere to their thinks peak they will automatically brand you as alt-right or try to shame you with one of the isms.)
One good thing though is that this allows us to keep track of how bad things are getting there.
Or just let them post their complaints anyway and be laughed at? Everything is open to criticism here. The more ridiculous and contradictory the better. In this instance the senator is a renowned joke, and while the concept of ensuring better protection against monopolies are a good thing, the suggested implementation demonstrates a complete lack of serious thought about the matter.
Also: Different authors have different slants on things, that's always going to be true and it's one of the reasons why the author or articles are clearly listed.
El Reg's longstanding tagline is "Biting the hand that feeds IT." A secondary tagline on the About page is "The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community."
This is a news and opinion site. No one says you have to agree with the authors' opinions. Commenters disagree with them all the time. But given that the site's stated raison d'etre is to provide "independent news and views," it's nonsensical to castigate an author for (a) having a point of view and (b) being upfront about said POV.
She's a San Francisco Leftist! This is the tone on all her articles.
I don't like the law either, it is an attempt to fix a real problem with a bad solution. Currently the Government does not have any real tools except Anti-Trust to reign in these Tech Social-Media/Cloud companies who have aligned themselves with 1 political ideology. It's not a good solution and probably will not stand up in court even with the current Conservative majority on the court.
The situation with Parler could indeed be seen as "Anti-Competitive" and be addressed with current anti-trust laws. Seeing as the real facts in this situation are that the majority of planning and communication between the protesters on Jan 6th was done on Facebook, not Parler! And also considering that the majority of the communications between the current batch of rioters occurs on Twitter and nothing is done about it
This post has been deleted by its author
It's amazing how a single word like "woke" can reveal the true motivations behind a legislative push.
Don't get me wrong, monopolies are a massive issue as I've commented elsewhere. But this guy is hurting the cause for anti-trust reform with this obviously disingeneous and politicised approach.
It's amazing how a single word like "woke" can reveal
In a different place (/.) I listed my understandings about that word. To use it with any vitriol you need to be at least one of these items...
From the USA
A conservative of some type
Have an IQ under 80
You will note that I am not saying that all conservatives or people from the left side of the pond are stupid. That would be a rude assumption.
And what does "woke" actually mean?
showing a willingness to treat other human beings with the same possibility of respect I may treat other people in my groups.
You've only just noticed that? For the most part, folks who either claim to be woke, or yell/scream that other people are not woke (enough) tend to be hypocrites, and hysterical with it.
The concept is OK, it's the application that leaves a lot to be desired.
> And what does "woke" actually mean?
While I agree with the rest of your post, I'm as much wary of people using it as a slur, as of people wearing it as a badge of honor. Both are usually very similar self-centered jerks.
Unfortunately, more often than not, "being woke" means pretending in a shrill and obnoxious way to adhere to values you don't really understand or follow. To my understanding you don't really need a self-congratulatory term to be respectful to others, you just need some open-mindedness, human empathy, and a lack of arrogance.
That might be so...
But I'll be willing to bet £10 towards my local Hospice that he will be on Fox News and specifically the 'Tucker Carlson Show' very soon to talk about his idea and how well it fits in with Tuckers 'Replacement Theory' ranting.
Lord Hawhaw Hawley is a child of white privilege, private schools, rich parents and the rest.. Just like Tucker.
Those two prove that money really is the root of evil in the USA.
Well, yes. He's a would-be autocrat hoping to become Trump 2.0.
I don't think he'll make it. He's better-educated (went to Stanford and Yale, don't'cha know) than Trump, even if he still manages to be dumb as a brick; and he's more successful. However much he panders to the deplorables, I don't think he'll wash off the perfume of the elite.
It's a stupid plan anyway, because Trump wasn't the real power for the past four years; McConnell was. If Hawley were half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be aiming for Senate Majority Leader, and working to retake control of the Republican Party from the populists. Trump supporters aren't going to desert the Republicans any time soon even if the Republicans go back to ignoring them, and voter turnout is easy enough to crank up with some well-placed outrage at the last minute. The GOP doesn't need another Trump -- they just lost sight of the ball in 2016.
That said, I'm happy if they continue to fight internally for the foreseeable future, and Hawley continues to make an ass of himself.
While I would love to see Josh charged with insurrection and would welcome any penalties anyone can impose on him, he does have a kernel of an glimmer of an idea in the bill.
Many of us have commented (ranted, raged) against companies buying out the competition. While lawmakers work on a reform of antitrust legislation, suspending mergers and acquisitions for some ($100m is probably too low a bar) companies does make some sense (although I'd time limit it).
Perhaps a Congressperson with their head on their shoulders rather than up the other end can pursue it.
Will scupper an awful lot of startup CEO's retirement plans. Don't many of them want just this very thing? Then they can walk away with their pockets stuffed with cash and .... rinse and repeat.
That's how the Millionaires at 22 become Billionaires by 30.
The American Way.
Putting limits on take-over size does seem almost socialist in nature and very out of order for a true Republican.
OTOH, I suspect that a few very large brown envelopes (20ft container sized) might make this all go away. As has been said many times, the USA gets the Government it can buy but not afford.
Sometimes the banner is flown by the least desirable messenger. I would much rather defend Jimi Hendrix in a freedom of speech argument than 2 Live Crew; Leonard Cohen for intellectual property than Metallica ( I still WTF at that; how did they teach the shaved apes to pronounce intellectual? ).
If you believe in a sovereign nation, it is not unreasonable to assign a corporate valuation ceiling based upon the valuation of the encapsulating nation.
Not long ago, the antecedent was a given; today it isn't so clear.
While I might prefer to identify as an "anywhere", my "any"s do not include the United States of Apple; the Republic of Google; the Democratic Peoples Republic of Oracle; nor the Realm of the Micro Serf. [ getting carried away here ]
This idjit's head is entirely in the wrong place and motivated by the wrong reasons; but unfettered growth is no more desirable in a corporate entity than a political one.
If you believe in a sovereign nation, it is not unreasonable to assign a corporate valuation ceiling based upon the valuation of the encapsulating nation.
That's not half bad, cap at 49% of GDP much as Bitcoin assumes no one entity can control 50% or more of all mining resources.
Perhaps blockchain can manage some good in the end, if only in conceptual form?
"... so by that theory the new voting suppression laws that many states are trying to push through are to increase the difficulty of the "proof of work" you need to achieve to be able to cast your vote ?"
Apparently there is just way to much Kool-Aid on the other side of the ocean!
Put the glass down and read the laws, understand the laws instead of listening to the lying race hustlers!
There are insurmountable Constitutional barriers to banning lobbying -- at least insurmountable without an amendment. The courts have consistently found that political action is broadly protected by both the speech, assembly, and petition clauses of the First Amendment. It's essentially the same grounds as the decision in Citizens United v. FCC.
Essentially, the speech clause protects political speech; the assembly clause lets you do it as an organization; and the petition clause means you can't be restricted from doing it to members of the government. See for example the decision in Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn..
As is usually the case with civil-rights issues, it's very difficult to formulate a legal basis for this sort of thing which improves the situation. You want to get rid of "lobbyists"? Fine. How do you do that with a bright-line rule in a constitutional amendment which doesn't interfere with, say, email campaigns to legislators? With political advocacy by NGOs? Maybe you want to ban those too -- but then you've gutted the petition right.
There's no substitute for a strong constitutionally-protected civil rights regime (and the one in the US is already tottering). Lobbying is the lesser evil.
As often remarked by Cory Doctorow monopolies have been encouraged by the Right for decades. With disastrous consequences in all parts of society.
Capitalism only works where there is competition. Stopping the big boys from suppressing competitors is exactly what's needed. The "unintended consequences" of this ought to be a good thing.
It won't be allowed to happen, too much of their funding comes from all sorts of huge monopoly owners.
> Well don't they both, always! Personally I say you can't fly on just one wing.
OMG you're way too consensual and basely logical for modern politics.
Modern politics require you tear them a new one! Make them cry! Make them pay for cleaning up their own blood! That's the American way!
/s
There's this thing in the UK, called the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that exists to address precisely the sort of issues suggested here.
A republican waking up to the fact that full blown laissez-faire capitalist ideals of everything is being on sale can be counter productive leaves a tiny speck of hope that they may have realised that decent regulation in a market economy can have advantages. Stress on the word decent, there are no shortage of examples of where it's borked too...
The devil is in the detail and no doubt the proposed implementation will be borked in the interests of lining the pockets of GOP interests. But that's just politics.
... someone doesn't fully understand what "purple state" means in this context.
Hint: If you were a Red State and are now a Purple State, the general population is leaning towards the Blue side of the spectrum and probably wants nothing to do with your proposed neo-confederacy. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Those are "outsiders" who have accumulated in our largest city over the past 20 years, not natives. Brought in by the lure of corporate tax breaks and cheap labor from the outlying counties. They have finally gained a (possible) paper-thin margin in our state-wide election process, although the majority of local counties outside of that metro area still vote deeply red. They do not represent the majority of the state, they are merely numerically superior right now.
If the largest city has 1% of the land area but 50.1% of the population, that city does not represent the entirety of the state, especially when the areas outside of that city are diametrically opposed to the views and beliefs of the residents of that city. This can be observed in the fact that the State governement is still firmly Conservative. But a state-wide election, where the many votes of that city drown out the votes from the rest of the state, makes it appear as if the state has become something that it has not.
Given the moves in Missippi to make April a celebration of 'Confederacy' and in Florida where De Santis is going to implement political correctness (his correctness) on Professors and Students at Universities then it might not be that far away.
With the latter, I fully expect to see McCarthy like trials where the faculty has to prove loyalty to their 'dear leader' aka De Santis.
Add in the fact that a blind mule could be put up as a candidate in the Matt Gaetz constituency and still win the election by a landslide shows how far ingrained the GOP psyche is in the South.
Meanwhile, No 45 is hiding away in FLA playing round after round of Golf with cronies (the latter always lose because 45 cheats) just waiting to rise like a Phoenix in August (according to the My Pillow guy) and resume his residency of the White House.
The whole thing is like a soap opera which would be entertaining if the USA didn't have the most powerful military machine in the world.
He says "woke" like it's a bad thing.
There aren't two sides to what happened on January 6th of this year. The election was not stolen. Black people got to vote because safety measures made necessary by the pandemic (no legitimate controversy there; preventing the election from becoming a superspreader event was needed to save lives) made it possible for black people to evade voter suppression (everyone has the right to vote, and the election steal was a lie; that's a fact, not an opinion).
There aren't two sides to the invasion of Poland in 1939 either.
Certainly there was a time when both the Democratic and Republican parties represented legitimate political viewpoints. Both parties are playing to their base too much, but at the moment, it's only the Republican Party which has almost completely fallen prey to its lunatic fringe.
Excluding the lunatic fringe is not a departure from objectivity; to treat their views as though they were valid would be to mislead the reader severely.
He says "woke" like it's a bad thing.
That should be enough to tell everyone what he is.
Sadly, some Americans still don't realize that.
Not that everything called "woke" is perfect, or beyond debate - but being genuinely aware of the issues facing black Americans, as they see them from their perspective, not just from the imperfect perspective that even a liberal white person can have without help is obviously not only good, but necessary.
He's doing this just to get his name out there, and El Reg is obliging.
It worked for Trump. The more ridiculous his claims, the more time the US news media spent incredulously talking about him. That's how he managed to become the Republican candidate without spending billions on TV spots, and it worked just well enough to get him into office as well.
If the senator who shall remain nameless thought there was any chance of his law passing, he wouldn't talk about how he's stopping "woke" companies, as that's the kind of problematic dog-whistle statement that will guarantee the courts will throw out the law at the very first opportunity.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
