Don't you think you're putting an unreasonably high burden on people? I can argue that I think the lawmakers representing me and other citizens need to figure out the details without myself having figured out the details. I can point out a problem and ask someone to fix the problem without know what the specifics of the solution look like. I know healthcare is absurdly complicated but I still think single-payer is the right idea and I want my law makers to do something about that - and if there's problems, it's on them to try to communicate that with me or to work around it. Same principle here. "Regulate Google as public utility" is actually fairly specific since we've got lots of public utilities already that we can model this off of.
I haven't searched exhaustively, but nonetheless you'd think there would be more specific proposals being talked about given how hot this topic is.
There is very little precedent to regulating tech companies on such a granular level. The closest thing I can think of is various EU regulations that usually amount to shaking down US giants for money once in a while. It's hard to compare this to regulating something like electricity or water delivery which is much more stable technologically. Google has changed tremendously over the years and still is innovating rapidly.
And as to healthcare, well, I do think people should actually go through the same thought exercise. Tons of totally broken overregulated healthcare systems out there.
"Lawmakers" usually effectively ends up being a combination of lobbyists, politicians and public pressure.
So, to be clear, are you saying that someone should make such a proposal or are you saying that advocating for this change requires there to be a proposal? Because I'd be in favor of the former but I think the latter disrupts conversation and is unreasonable. The way you wrote your post sounded strongly like "I have a knock-down argument against any advocates until they have legislation written up." Which would be an unreasonably high bar.
Well, I'm merely saying that a lack of proposals indicates a lack of workable solutions.
By proposal I don't mean an actual bill ready to be passed, just a high level overview that does talk about the implementation. Obviously doesn't need to be a sound legal document.
I think it's perfectly fine and important for people to speak out against perceived injustices committed by tech companies. But yes I do also think that calling for "regulation" while being very vague is also a bad idea.
We've seen this play out with GDPR. Tons of people were (and are) calling for more stringent data privacy regulations. So EU came up with this monstrosity nobody fully understands in its consequences (because you can't). Enforcement is totally random. Some websites ended up just banning EU users. Many now come with very annoying cookie popups. Those that try to "comply" can never be sure they fully do. Very few people are happy or have benefited from this thing in any way.
I think this is exactly what you get when you want something done but don't know what.
The most common proposals I've seen are to break Google into multiple companies, particularly with search being separate. This seems adequately specific. (Though obviously different from the public-utility plan in this article.) Is that not specific enough for you? This seems vastly simpler than GPDR in scope and with much more relevant precedent to draw from.
Well a breakup is definitely easier to define. But you should specify along which lines. YouTube is the obvious one. Maybe a bunch of other acquisitions that aren't too techy can be rolled back.
What about other products? Gmail? Maps? Android/App Store? Chrome? Google News? Shopping? Translate? Docs? Should these be separate companies?
Only once you define that can the plan be criticized.
This is so much easier to do as one only needs to list up to 20 names (and perhaps some minor obligations), yet we're still not seeing too many people spell this out. I think for exactly the same reason - it becomes obvious how unpractical it is.
This is an example of why I think you are placing the burden of detail too high. The discussion was about the case for why something needed to be done, not specifically what. Yet a lack-of-sufficiently-detailed-solution let's you shut it down. Even in the case of a fairly clear proposal, it's not detailed enough. Search is Google's biggest monopoly and a proposal to separate that out would be obvious. Is Shopping really relevant? To the lawyers figuring out the details it is, but not for this discussion.
Anybody can list a bunch of names to be broken up in a few minutes. I gave you plenty of examples to work with. Nothing to do with lawyers.
Google search is approx. 60% of Google's revenue according to the latest 10-K. And may be an even bigger portion of the net income. If you keep that intact you won't kill Google's golden goose nor will you solve many unfairness issues as relating to search.
AdSense et al. is 13%.
YouTube is 10%. These 3 are most of revenue-generating Google.
It is important what happens to their many other products. Most of which are not bringing in big money (in an obvious way) but are widely used.
Does everything not-search become one company consisting of Google leftovers? (this may be what you're proposing, but it's not clear)
The goal of any such action is to benefit the consumer in some way. When you actually do start defining how things would be broken up it becomes more obvious how consumers could suffer. And it becomes more obvious how you're not de-monopolizing anything.
> The discussion was about the case for why something needed to be done, not specifically what. Yet a lack-of-sufficiently-detailed-solution let's you shut it down
This may be what the original linked article talks about. I started this thread talking about how instead and it never discussed the why. It's merely a thought exercise aimed at illuminating what I consider a lack of workable solutions. Not telling anybody they cannot be interested in yet-undefined solutions.
> Don't you think you're putting an unreasonably high burden on people?
In a world where the question of "Should we attempt to do a thing?" depends in part on whether or not there's a way to do it that brings more help than harm, I think it might be worth considering that these could be seen as reasonable questions.
Given that regulated utilities have occasionally produced massive messes like California's ongoing issues with PG&E and wildfires, do you think it's worth being cautious and considering possible consequences?
You've misread me if you thought I said specifics aren't important. Rather, that it's possible to advocate for "someone needs to figure out the specifics" without yourself knowing the specifics.
