Despite the shorthand we sometimes use, companies aren’t actually ever turned into utilities. Companies provide utilities. What you are talking about is the idea of making the Internet a utility, not any ISP. It’s not like only Verizon would be a utility but Comcast wouldn’t. They’d all be companies providing a utility.
So what would be the thing that Amazon provides that could be turned into a utility? Selling material goods, digital goods, and server space? That’s basically turning the entire online market into a utility. Heck, Amazon has some brick-and-mortar stores, so that would be a utility, too.
If you then make rules about Amazon having to sell everything, everyone who sells anything online would have to sell anything. Everything would have to be a utility. That’s not workable.
No, the only solution to a company being too big so as to have monopoly-like influence is to break it up. And, while that may force competition and get prices to go lower, it won’t make any of those companies have to carry an item that you want them to.
Actually, once they control 50.1% of the book business in the US, I think they should fall under anti-trust laws. Less about what they choose to sell and more about just trust laws.
Anti-trust is supposed to keep businesses from pursuing anti-competitive business practices, not punish them for creating a popular service that actually does a fair amount of public good.
Intel controls more than 50% of the consumer CPU market, should they be broken up under anti-trust?
Forcing Amazon to carry it might be problematic. Amazon preventing 3rd parties from selling a particular book through their fulfillment program is just as problematic.
Maybe not. I heard they sell Mein Kampf, though. The original plan is what I’d like to see more of these companies commit to. There’s a lot of worries about misinformation these days, and that’s understandable, but anything that looks like censorship or trying to hide the truth just increases mistrust and makes people more willing to believe alternative sources. I’ve seen this in action. And beyond that, the people making the decisions on what to suppress are far from infallible, and are as likely to be proved wrong by the passage of time as right. Having the process be so arbitrary just makes it all worse.
It’s okay. I didn’t want to go to the pit because it’s bad enough wading through the snide, irrelevant (and predictable) comments on the normal forums, and the pit gets a lot more of that plus added slurs and derailment, but we’ve managed to have the discussion anyway.
In the UK in order to get planning permission to build new housing, developers must guarantee that some proportion of the dwellings they build will meet conditions to be considered ‘affordable housing’, even if they would prefer to build nothing but executive homes. In other words, they compel companies to provide goods or services they do not wish to offer - and this is the more moderate position. The socialist position is that the local government should build low cost housing and rent it cheaply to the those in need, and it’s what I support. So I guess according to @Atamasama I’m worse than a hardcore USSR socialist, lol.
I think the effect of that would be to make it much easier for cranks, extremists and conspiracy theorists to put their ideas in front of a broad public. Much like the advent of social media has already done; QAnon would not be a thing if the only way for them to get the word out was putting up flyers on phone poles. Putting that stuff on a (virtual) shelf next to fact-based books creates the impression that they are equally valuable as sources of information.
I don’t think that’s a good trend. I’m comfortable with private companies operating as gatekeepers to keep loonies from having high-profile public platforms. If they abuse that power, they’ll lose their market share, no matter how large it was to start with. (This is an area in which my opinion has evolved dramatically in the last few years; I think recent American history shows that unfettered free speech is overrated)
If I own a big regional shopping mall (first, I’m in danger of extinction, but …), my leases with tenants very likely contain prohibitions that prevent the sale of certain things.
So, my mall may ban the sale of certain things (or the provision of certain services) and the leases with my tenants (who, effectively, are akin to Amazon’s third-party providers using the Amazon platform) prevent the same things.
It’s like saying my invited guests and I cannot smoke in my house, and neither can the tenant who rents a room from me.
I see Amazon’s position as consistent here, whether or not the basic position is one with which you agree.
Scale matters. People melted because a single baker wouldn’t make a cake. Those same people cheer dominant corporations banning Dr. Seuss.
In your example of a lease a thread a mall you ever see any restrictions that’d ban Green Eggs and Ham? No. Malls don’t micromanage the book store tenants.
And at some point the same argument that is used to cancel because it’s being done by corporations or mobs of people at universities could be used for text messages or phone calls.
I think you should try harder to put more bad analogies, misstatements of fact, and logical fallacies into one post. It’s already pretty full, but I bet you could do better!
Yes. In a former life, I saw lots of products, goods, and services that had to be pulled from the shelves of tenants for violating the terms of their lease. I also saw tenants evicted from shopping centers for continually failing to come into compliance over ‘contraband’ goods and services.
But more to the OP’s point: Amazon is a platform. If they won’t sell my book, there’s very little stopping me from selling it myself or from using third-party fulfillment houses to drop ship the sales I generate from my website.
I’d rather have bad arguments than your desired reality where those who don’t conform are silenced. You illiberal wannabe Stalinists/Maoists are a far greater danger to democracy and liberty than any other group in the west.
Lies. No dominant corporation had anything to do with withdrawing some titles from reprinting, and it is absolutely not a ban in any conceivable sense of the word. The decision was made by Dr. Seuss Enterprises, which manages the estate. No book was ever banned. There are literally millions of copies available in libraries and used book stores and peoples’ homes. Anybody who wants one can easily obtain it.
There’s been so much publicity about this, including threads here, that no possible excuse can be made for your post. It’s a flat lie for ideological propaganda. Stick it somewhere.