I think people and societies are vastly more resilient that you’re implying, and would survive an admittedly complex 6 month period to switch necessary services. Would it be hard? Yeah absolutely. But I’ve never accepted “but it’s so hard!!” as valid reason to hold off positive progress.
Progress towards what? People migrating to equally scummy Amazon and Microsoft? What possible progress could blocking google bring, that it would be worth people potentially going without paychecks because accounting sw was not working. Or being unable to access services because they register with gmail they can no longer access. Factories shutting down because their logistics tracked everything in a google spreadsheet they can no longer access and have no backup.
Not to mention people who could outright die if some hospital software somewhere relies on some google service.
Ok, I disagree, but let’s say it wouldn’t. You admit yourself it would still be hard. What is the advantage of doing it? What is that mythical “progress” of yours, that would be achieved by blocking google cloud, as opposed to just search and whatever other problematic service?
How does pushing people from google to Amazon/Microsoft cloud achieve that? Or do you expect people and companies will magically not need cloud services anymore?
My friend, you yourself have been implying this whole time that Google’s infrastructure is too vital and important to remove - how do you not see that this means they are too powerful? Remember trust-busting? Remember anti-monopoly activism? Nobody thought that by breaking up the railroads people wouldn’t need trains anymore, but they understood the danger of allowing a single company to have such market dominance and what it that would mean for consumers. Same thing here. And yes, I’m aware this requires continual diligence as the phone companies that were once PacBell are now bigger than it was, but that lacking of failure to continue enforcing anti-trust doesn’t mean the concept is wrong.
No single company should be allowed to have such influence that very idea of them going away leads to the very doomsday considerations we’ve been talking about. That’s what this is all about.
That’s exactly what the US government did under Teddy Roosevelt when it forced by law these large entities to divest and break up into smaller ones not subsidiarized to each other. And yes, they should also do this to Amazon and Microsoft.
edit: I guess I should say I understand they can’t force them to break up in this instance, but they can simply state they won’t do business with the entities at present and recommend it. If that doesn’t happen, I am confident other savvy investors will be happy to fill any hole left by these giants. The world will keep turning, I promise.
I think people and societies are vastly more resilient that you’re implying, and would survive an admittedly complex 6 month period to switch necessary services. Would it be hard? Yeah absolutely. But I’ve never accepted “but it’s so hard!!” as valid reason to hold off positive progress.
Progress towards what? People migrating to equally scummy Amazon and Microsoft? What possible progress could blocking google bring, that it would be worth people potentially going without paychecks because accounting sw was not working. Or being unable to access services because they register with gmail they can no longer access. Factories shutting down because their logistics tracked everything in a google spreadsheet they can no longer access and have no backup.
Not to mention people who could outright die if some hospital software somewhere relies on some google service.
None that insane hyperbole doomsday scenario would happen. None of it.
Ok, I disagree, but let’s say it wouldn’t. You admit yourself it would still be hard. What is the advantage of doing it? What is that mythical “progress” of yours, that would be achieved by blocking google cloud, as opposed to just search and whatever other problematic service?
Step one in saving us from the oncoming corporate technocracy?
How does pushing people from google to Amazon/Microsoft cloud achieve that? Or do you expect people and companies will magically not need cloud services anymore?
My friend, you yourself have been implying this whole time that Google’s infrastructure is too vital and important to remove - how do you not see that this means they are too powerful? Remember trust-busting? Remember anti-monopoly activism? Nobody thought that by breaking up the railroads people wouldn’t need trains anymore, but they understood the danger of allowing a single company to have such market dominance and what it that would mean for consumers. Same thing here. And yes, I’m aware this requires continual diligence as the phone companies that were once PacBell are now bigger than it was, but that lacking of failure to continue enforcing anti-trust doesn’t mean the concept is wrong.
No single company should be allowed to have such influence that very idea of them going away leads to the very doomsday considerations we’ve been talking about. That’s what this is all about.
How do you not see, that banning one company would just increase the monopoly the remaining companies hold?
Google is not even the largest cloud provider. Amazon’s AWS has 30%, Microsoft’s Azure 20%, Google is third with 12%.
You can’t “bust monopolies” by reducing the number of options. You need to increase the number of competitiors.
That’s exactly what the US government did under Teddy Roosevelt when it forced by law these large entities to divest and break up into smaller ones not subsidiarized to each other. And yes, they should also do this to Amazon and Microsoft.
edit: I guess I should say I understand they can’t force them to break up in this instance, but they can simply state they won’t do business with the entities at present and recommend it. If that doesn’t happen, I am confident other savvy investors will be happy to fill any hole left by these giants. The world will keep turning, I promise.
deleted by creator