Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Conservatives Pose New Threat to Free Markets and Tech Economy

There's a war on business on the way.

It almost goes without saying that liberal Democrats are hostile to private industry and entrepreneurship, as they introduce tax-raising, regulation-laden, job-killing bills that earn the ire of the hard-pressed business community.

In California, the anti-business rhetoric has gotten particularly vicious, especially regarding tech firms. Guess which far-out-there leftist made the following statements: "Well, size matters, and Silicon Valley's giants are just too darn big. Time to chop them up like old Ma Bell." He also argued that "no corporation should be too big to fail—or to nail" and called for the government to "regulate Google and all of Silicon Valley into submission."

This was a trick question. It wasn't a leftist Democrat who called for nailing businesses. It was conservative writer Kurt Schlichter, in an August column on the conservative Townhall. Since then, other conservatives have touted that idea and that column. For instance, Mark Pulliam, writing on the "pro-Trumpism" American Greatness site, called for the kind of "trust busting" that went on during the Progressive Era.

Pulliam described the top-five tech firms (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon) as the new Robber Barons that are "de facto public utilities, with an obligation to operate fairly, responsibly and without viewpoint discrimination." He argued that they have "fallen appallingly short of this ideal" in some of their treatment of conservative websites and noted that they "share a progressive political agenda, as reflected by Apple's $1 million donation" to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It's ironic that some modern conservatives want to use progressive policies to punish private companies because of their progressive politics. If that's the new standard, then there's nothing wrong with leftists using the iron hand of regulation to harass conservative-oriented companies such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A—or that bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Nailing companies for anything other than law-breaking is a grievous misuse of power. Customers are free to patronize firms that best reflect their preferences and ideals, but none of this is the government's business. Specific problems with how tech companies may have behaved — the firing of an employee who advocated conservative views or any alleged misuse of web-based information — can be handled by existing workplace and privacy laws. Allegations of censorship can be dealt with through public pressure or competition.

The monopoly shtick is laughable. These are indeed massive companies with huge amounts of market power … right now. But they are not monopolies. Competitors are free to take a run at them. Remember when MySpace and the Yahoo search engine reigned supreme? Ten years from now, who knows what companies will be on top?

Some conservatives want to use the public-utility model to bust trusts, yet public utilities are among the few true monopolies because the government has granted them franchises. That's the only path to monopoly these days — when government outlaws the competition. And how would conservatives like it if the "fairness doctrine" approach, by which the government forces media companies to provide alternative views, were applied to their publications?

The conservative movement has long been associated with free markets, but anti-capitalism has also simmered within it. In "The Coming War on Business," the New York Times' columnist David Brooks pointed to the prescient (and controversial) work of the late Samuel Francis, who urged Republicans to reject business-oriented conservatism and embrace the kind of Middle America-style nationalism that ultimately propelled Donald Trump into the presidency.

Francis saw capitalism as something that destroys social institutions and paves the way for cheap, immigrant labor. "Capitalism is at least as much an enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism itself, for that matter, and those on the 'right' who make a fetish of capitalism generally understand this and applaud it," Francis wrote in a 2000 column titled, "Capitalism the Enemy." He decried capitalist egalitarianism, which "refuses to distinguish between one consumer's dollar and another."

Those of us who champion free markets love that aspect of it. Nothing destroys racism, classism, sexism and every other "ism" better than a system that's open to all comers. Nothing generates new ideas and economic opportunity and, yes, freedom more than the creative destruction of the marketplace. For most businesses, the only color they see is green.

That beats having the government use its immense police power to dismantle private companies that don't do what political leaders want, whether those leaders are left-wing Democrats who despise companies with a religious message or right-wing Republicans who want to punish companies that advocate social-justice issues.

Brooks argues that "the next populism will probably take (Francis') ethnic nationalism and add an anti-corporate, anti-tech layer" given that tech firms "stand for everything Francis hated—economically, culturally, demographically and nationalistically." Actually, that next populism is here. We need to recognize that the latest assault on free markets is not coming from the Democratic left, but from the Republican right.

This column first appeared in the Orange County Register.

Photo Credit: jurvetson/flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Pulliam described the top-five tech firms (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon) as the new Robber Barons that are 'de facto public utilities, with an obligation to operate fairly, responsibly and without viewpoint discrimination.'"

    Yeah. I mean, look at YouTube taking down those bump stock videos. And if you think this is bad, remember that time that YouTube and Facebook said they wouldn't allow hardcore pornography?

    The Great Fapmine, my grandpappy called it. No one could prune their petunias, lasso their mustangs or bump their stocks for years. Thank Almighty Providence that Nixon created the Onanism Satisfaction and Haleness Administration to force all those prudish companies to guarantee their customers the representation and autonomy they deserved. And if they could keep people from watching porn with their Awesome Powers of Corporate Gatekeeping, who's to say they couldn't do the same to any other kind of video or text? I mean, there's no real difference, is there?

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    One should write and speak for the benefit of your audience. Talking to yourself is sometimes helpful, especially if a therapist overhears and automatically knows what kind of medication you need.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I gather this was not intended as a compliment... Yet I believe it stands as one regardless.

  • faviluh||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://Onlinereviewtech.com

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Facebook"

    "utility"

    I just realized something isn't quite right here.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's a big F.u.

  • ||

    Facebook is a right. It is a life necessarity. You wouldn't deprive people of access to water would you?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    That depends on the adequacy of their contribution to the function and productivity of my Chilean sodium extraction enterprise.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We need to recognize that the latest assault on free markets is not coming from the Democratic left, but from the Republican right.

    Hey, it's coming from BOTH thank you very much.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    In Greenhut's defense, there's nothing "latest" about the Democratic Left's assaults. They got the early bird special on that one.

  • ThomasD||

    You are not following the Reason template. When given the opportunity to prove that they are 'tough on the right' all authors must take it.

    This is not a 'pox on both houses' moment.

  • ||

    This is not a 'pox on both houses' moment.

    Did somebody notice that there aren't any bills or politicians mentioned in the article?

    This is Reason crying foul because Cultural Conservatives are "adopting" progressive tools to put the screws to private/corporate culture that they don't like. A practice Reason and pretty much every media outlet espouses.

    Especially egregious is this;

    If that's the new standard, then there's nothing wrong with leftists using the iron hand of regulation to harass conservative-oriented companies such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A—or that bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    A talking head thinks massive corporations might be guilty of anti-trust so, might as well back socialism.

  • Eric Bana||

    Um, Greenhut is pointing out the pitfalls of conservative arguments for regulating companies like Google because of their progressive politics. He's showing that it's a two-way street and can easily happen in the opposite way that conservatives want. Thus, his argument that the government shouldn't get involved in these things:

    Nailing companies for anything other than law-breaking is a grievous misuse of power.
  • Bra Ket||

    It's pretty much all over once you've lost "Kurt Schlichter".

  • buddhastalin||

    Did somebody notice that there aren't any bills or politicians mentioned in the article?

    I frequent other anti-left websites and the clamoring to use antitrust law to attack tech is palpable. If you care about free markets, then there is reason for concern since politics is downstream from culture.

    A talking head thinks massive corporations might be guilty of anti-trust so, might as well back socialism.

    I don't think this concern over antitrust is genuine. I think conservatives are pissed about Big Tech politics (understandably so), rifled around the government coercion toolbox and pulled out the antitrust hammer. In the end, the small government mask always falls off and conservatives will wield government coercion where they see fit.

  • ||

    I have no idea what Big Tech politics is supposed to be so offensive to conservatives.
    They keep lobbying for more H1-B visas?

  • buddhastalin||

    YouTube took down videos concerning bump stocks, which videos were fine for a long time until recently. Twitter banned ads from a House rep mentioning baby parts. Google fired an employee for writing a memo about diversity. I've seen the insides of some of these big tech companies, and it often feels like I never left the small commie liberal arts college I attended (don't ask me why I went to one).

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    @ buddhastalin

    All of which only serves to make the Right stronger. Do you even Streisand Effect? Why would you sacrifice the rook of "victim status" for the pawn of "slightly more MSM exposure"? Especially when doing so hands over to your adversaries the queen of "right-wing oppression and hypocrisy"?

  • Finrod||

    If you think Google is hard leftist (they are), MongoDB is worse.

  • chemjeff||

    "I don't think this concern over antitrust is genuine."

    Yeah I don't think they really care about antitrust law.

    Instead, for the Schlicter-esque conservatives, it is more like, "Me Hate Left, Me Use Antitrust Hammer To Hit Left, Me Watch Left Cry, Me Get Happy"

  • Eric Bana||

    That's funny.

  • Horatio||

    Schlichter is such an internet tough guy, always rallying the troops to FIGHT, but curiously short on detailed battle plans.

  • mpercy||

    And they're still at the table gorging away.

  • Braunasaurus||

    Republicans hate free markets Democrats hate free speech oh what a time to be alive

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    To be fair to all Republicans and Democrats out there, they BOTH hate free speech and free markets (unless either are used to support their causes).

  • Mauser||

    Yup. Basically the same party if viewed through the lens of classical liberalism / libertarianism.

  • Mauser||

    "The conservative movement has long been associated with free markets"

    This is a joke, history would argue otherwise—farm subsidies, defense industry, pork laden bills for red states, protectionism.

  • BYODB||

    I think this is only the case when you include Democrats in the picture. It's mostly an issue of scale.

    While both parties are hostile in one form or another to free markets, by and large Democrats are far more hostile to far more markets.

    So it's basically a pick the form of your destroyer, or at least pick the rate of destruction, rather than a choice between actual free markets or non-free markets.

  • buddhastalin||

    It's a choice between slow socialists and fast socialists.

  • ||

    It's a choice between national socialists and international socialists.

  • buddhastalin||

    Nazis and Internazis

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    That darn Klan must be burning crosses under Hazel's bed again.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    It's a choice between tyrants who think they're egalitarians and tyrants who know they're not.

    An egalitarian economy is more unnatural than an unequal one, so the Left has to use more violence to try to create it artificially.

  • ||

    Well, since they switched positions on free trade, the scale difference has shrunk.

  • BYODB||

    No one is for free trade, no one at all, so I don't think they switched sides so much as they eventually agreed it was 'for the best' not to have it.

  • King Lamoni||

    I believe you are confusing "conservative" with "Republican" The Republican party has long been the refuge of many conservative politicians, but that doesn't mean that conservatives have ever made up the majority of the party. I would point to Calvin Coolidge as the best example of a true conservative president. Many others have claimed to be conservative, but they were mostly pandering to try to gain more votes.

  • mpercy||

    "It's ironic that some modern conservatives want to use progressive policies to punish private companies because of their progressive politics. If that's the new standard, then there's nothing wrong with leftists using the iron hand of regulation to harass conservative-oriented companies such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A—or that bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    I just figured that instead of at least trying to pretend they were better than progressives, they finally learned to use the progressive rules to their advantage.

    Nuclear option for SCOTUS? Learned that from Democrats.Tim Kaine crowed about how he'd see the Senate go nuclear for SCOTUS right after Hillary wins so that Garland and any/all of Hillary's forthcoming appointments get confirmed.

    Nuclear option for less-than-SCOTUS? Democrats did that and rue the day.

    Got a pen and a phone...and "I won". Obama wrote Trump's script for him.

    And there's the notion that nothing highlights a bad law like enforcing it good and hard until everyone sees how bad i is.

  • ||

    Competitors are free to take a run at them. Remember when MySpace and the Yahoo search engine reigned supreme? Ten years from now, who knows what companies will be on top?

    Yeah, back in the day when bundling your browser with your OS was Anti-Trust. Good Times!

  • Spinach Chin||

    The current drive by conservatives is to make the left eat the shit sandwich they created. Hence the schadenfreude of BLM going HAM on the ACLU and other lefty orgs.

    You can't win a fight when you're the only one playing by the rules. Any semblance that civility and Constitutional governance are just gonna magically one back into vogue is just wishful thinking on the author's part.

    Progressivism must first be ground into dust.

  • perlchpr||

    HAM?

  • Spinach Chin||

    Hard As a Motherfucker.

    Like going apeshit, but for millennials.

  • Drake||

    Yeah, you gotta fight freedom to get freedom back. Embracing statism is the only way to fight stati... wait a minute...

  • Spinach Chin||

    Sure, the preferred tactic is to get steamrolled. Is that what you believe? Every just war needs an Angel of Death. Trump is ours. Embrace it.

    Strange that conservatism has made greater gains than any time in modern history when a boorish, inflammatory, arrogant, asshole ex-Democrat is leading the Republican party, innit?

  • chemjeff||

    Which gains has conservatism made in the past 10 months?

    I see that Trump has scored some victories in favor of Trumpism. But what about conservatism?

  • Horatio||

    You mean cuckservatism!? What have your "principles" ever got you, chem? We have to FIGHT the fascist left by...well, I don't actually know, but we have to FIGHT them and not sit on our hands and get steamrolled like cucks! We'll form a new party of anti-fascists and take it to the Left good and hard. We'll call it...ANTI-FA! Yeah! And we'll go out and punch Feminazi's and such!

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Strange that conservatism has made greater gains than any time in modern history when a boorish, inflammatory, arrogant, asshole *Democrat was the DNC's anointed candidate*, innit?"

    FTFY

  • chemjeff||

    "Progressivism must first be ground into dust."

    Would you mind explaining what this even means in practical terms? You don't want any progressives left alive? You don't want progressive ideology promoted anywhere? That's not even possible for actual Soviet communism, people still preach that shit even today. What would you envision as a country in which "progressivism is ground into the dust"? No more income tax? No more regulatory agencies? No more Fed? No more women's suffrage? No more civil rights? What?

  • Spinach Chin||

    If you can't even agree that Progressivism needs to be marginalized, I don't know what to tell you. And when I say "Progressivism" I mean the modern flavor. Leftists, not liberals.

    When we think of Progressives in the same light as neo-Nazis, then I'll consider the fight won.

  • chemjeff||

    Perhaps it would help if you define what you think "progressivism" is. I view "progressivism" as an ideology that promotes the idea that the role of the state is to cure the imperfections in mankind, mostly as these flaws are manifested in society. I don't agree with that ideology, but I do agree with some of their critiques discussing flaws in society and human behavior generally. And I do agree that steps ought to be taken to try to improve the human condition, just that these steps ought to be taken via voluntary action and not by a coercive state. So when I read "progressivism should be ground into the dust" then to me this sounds a lot like saying that we should ignore the critiques and pretend that no collective action at all is appropriate to help people. But maybe you view progressivism as something different, I don't know.

  • Tony||

    Just another code word for Jews, more or less.

  • chemjeff||

    No, it's not code for "Jews". Except maybe only among the very fringey alt-righters.

    But I do think "progressivism" is interpreted by some as being code for some sort of neo-Stalinism.

  • Horatio||

    You and the other Cloud Shouters cannot ever articulate HOW you plan on marginalizing progressives.

    It's like the people who insisted I stop watching the NFL. "How can you sit on your hands and do NOTHING while the Left takes over another institution??" they cried, not realizing that boycotting is also "doing" nothing, only now I don't get to enjoy the one fucking thing I actually follow and can talk to my buddies about.

  • Rich||

    "Pulliam described the top-five tech firms (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon) as the new Robber Barons that are 'de facto public utilities, with an obligation to operate fairly, responsibly and without viewpoint discrimination.'"

    Obviously the solution is to nationalize all five.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Who are these people, and they represent conservatives in general, how?

  • BYODB||

    I don't know who this 'Mark Pulliam' guy is, but considering who else Reason thinks is a conservative I'll reserve judgment on if this individual is actually a conservative. Especially since, at the very least, this individual is espousing decidedly non-conservative view points.


    Is this another situation where someone calls themselves a conservative, says a bunch of stupid shit that most conservatives disagree with, and then is used as an example of a 'true conservative'? I recall the op-ed in I believe the Times recently written by another so-called 'Conservative' who is anything but yet is still cited as a 'voice of conservatives' even while conservative media sources lambasted the guy for being a jackass.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Isn't a conservative someone who votes to have cops shoot people for "the wrong kind" of plants (but not beer), and let those same cops beat and rape "the wrong kind" of women (but force them to hear their rapist's child)? The meaninglessness of euphemistic language gets foggier and foggier with each layer of added obscurantism.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It was inevitable. Populism always eventually ends up turning anti-capitalist.

  • BYODB||

    I think it's safe to say Democrats already proved that.

    Populism is just a dirtier word for Democracy.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That follows from the purpose of government being the initiation of force. Funny things, those premises...

  • TW||

    "It's ironic that some modern conservatives want to use progressive policies to punish private companies because of their progressive politics. If that's the new standard, then there's nothing wrong with leftists using the iron hand of regulation to harass conservative-oriented companies such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A—or that bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.?"

    Well since progressives are doing the very thing you posit, I don't see how that should be a deterrent to conservatives doing the same thing to progressive-oriented businesses. If anything, it might get the progressive-oriented businesses to rethink whether it's such a good idea to bankroll support for a massive regulatory state that can just as easily be turned against them as their rivals.

    FTR, I'm not a fan of using the regulatory state to "punish" businesses for their owners' political activities – I just don't think the argument that one side should refrain from doing it while the other sides does it with impunity is a very compelling one.

  • Murray Rothtard||

    yeah. becoming the thing you want to destroy just saves you the time of actually losing. great plan!

  • ||

    https://tinyurl.com/yatzj2yw

    Silicon Valley is actually very anti-regulation.

  • BYODB||

    No, they are only anti-regulation when it comes to their business. They're absolutely in favor of regulating anyone else's business. There is a difference.

  • Hank Phillips||

    It takes two to tu quoque.

  • John||

    So "free markets" now means consolidation and monopoly? I fail to see how commerce being controlled by a few companies is a free market. There is a place for anti-trust law in a free market.

  • Murray Rothtard||

    no there isn't tony.

    you can say you want a regulated market to be regulated the way you think markets should be regulated. but you can't make "free market" mean something else. good try.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If Trump broke into your house during breakfast and pissed in your Cheerios, John would be here telling you that you should be honored that Trump cares enough to take personal responsibility for making sure you're properly hydrated.

  • Horatio||

    Monopoly of what? INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES ARE A HUMAN RIGHT!!!

  • Headache||

    "free markets" = wet dream

  • NYer||

    "So "free markets" now means consolidation and monopoly?"

    No. But I'm not sure why you think our politicians are interested in seeing an open and competitive market place.

    These are the same guys that bailed out the banks, subsidize sugar, and support all sorts of mandates in the market, they don't give two craps about "free markets."

    "There is a place for anti-trust law in a free market"

    Well there certainly is a place in a "market" for anti-trust law. Just not a "free" market.

    Any threats of anti-trust action from Republicans would only result in increased lobbying efforts directed their way.

    So at best you would end up with Republicans targeting tech companies that didn't kiss the ring while the tech companies that did would be ignored or embraced as an example of a good companies that put "America First!"

    Doesn't sound like a "Free Market" to me.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what is supposed to be so "progressive" about Silicon Valley's politics other than "donates to the other side". Something which does not necessarily imply much in the way of political opinions - all sorts of people lobby congress for all sorts of reasons particular to themselves, and they sort of have to in today's regulatory environment.

  • buddhastalin||

    Take a look at the actual study that you linked to above, not just the article reporting it. Silicon Valley is hard core left on everything except regulation. They are a strange subset of leftism. Voting registration and outcomes in SV bear out where they are in the political spectrum.

  • BYODB||

    It's not that strange once you realize they're only against regulations on themselves, but they believe everything else should be regulated into the ground. They're slowly trying to insert themselves into the government itself as a de facto agency of some sort, only without all the 'regulation' and 'limitation' that goes along with a government agency.

    I.E. they want the power of the government without any of it's limitations. They want to be able to delete your Facebook and Twitter commentary that paints them in a bad light, and remove any of your posts asking about why the other post was removed. In other words, true fascism of the leftist stripe. Everything within Google, nothing without.

  • Tony||

    They are after their own interests like any other industry, it's just that they're not so fucking retarded as to support a party that denies the existence of climate change.

  • Horatio||

    *Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming. I'm not letting you rapists change the terminology.

  • Finrod||

    Asshat Tony once again conflates the fact that the climate changes with the hysteria that if we don't destroy all sources of cheap energy and impoverish the world, we're going to burn the earth to a cinder Real Soon Now.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what is supposed to be so "progressive" about Silicon Valley's politics other than "donates to the other side". Something which does not necessarily imply much in the way of political opinions - all sorts of people lobby congress for all sorts of reasons particular to themselves, and they sort of have to in today's regulatory environment.

  • Mark22||

    Conservatives Pose New Threat to Free Markets and Tech Economy

    I don't see what is "new" about that threat; conservatives are often statists and authoritarians.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    What do you think about intellectual property and copyright laws, and what does it have to do with the state of the tech sector? Just curious.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    I can't tell these days whether IT is problem solving on an industrial scale or just a new big rent-seeking private-sector bureaucracy. Upgrades used to be exciting. Now I dread them.

  • Finrod||

    Embrace the healing power of 'and'.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I share your dread. And if I take your money, and you have to click on a 30,000 word "beat me agreement" or forfeit what you paid for, that's a legally-binding contract by mutual consent to mutual advantage between two informed adults, right?

  • NYer||

    C̶o̶n̶s̶e̶r̶v̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ Statists Pose N̶e̶w̶ Ongoing Threat to Free Markets and T̶e̶c̶h̶ The Economy

    FIFY

    I'm not sure if these particular "conservatives" prove that the Right is a threat to Free Markets. I would argue that conservatives situational support for free markets (support for government subsidies, bailouts, and now protectionist trade policies) already proved they were less than "fair-weather" friends. My biggest concern though isn't from some bloggers/ opinion writers, my biggest concern is the bipartisan group of statists running our government. And I'm concerned about them whether they call themselves conservative or progressive.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Gosh, what a surprise! Who's a thunk God's Own Prohibitionists from 1928 or William Jennings Bryan's own Christian Socialist Communists could ever be at odds with the moral claim to freedom of action?

  • jomo||

    ...as if this wasn't already completely apparent from the hard right's ultra-solid support for having the President personally intervene in the personnel decisions of private companies like Carrier. People that in 2015 would have declared "the end of America as we know it" if Obama called up GM and asked them to stay in the US were 100% all about having Trump do the same with Carrier.

    Solyndra= end of the world, but subsidies and protectionism to force us back into coal? totally cool

    These are the same folks that claim we have lost the concept of self-reliance and need small government, yet depend on Daddy Trump to "make jobs" for them and need the government to press the channel change button on their remote for them if they see something that offends them.

  • King Lamoni||

    This one is tough. I don't want to call for the government to act. However, my patience is growing thin while waiting for alternative options to spread and share video content. YouTube has done things for a long time to shut down channels they disagree with by marking them as 18+, demonetizing them, and by not announcing updates to subscribers.

    Currently the videos I like to watch are still hosted by YouTube and so their actions haven't kept me from the content. I would much prefer to have several alternate video hosting sites available to use. Then they could all filter what they wanted as long as it wasn't mandated by government and I could find one that allowed the content I wanted to watch.

    Grouping Microsoft and Apple in the list of Monopolies is ridiculous. I have lived for a long time without any Microsoft products, and the same with Apple. I am also not a member of Facebook. I wish I could leave Google without basically unplugging from the Internet entirely. Google is awesome at providing services. If there was competition, we would have a bit more leverage as consumers to coerce them into behaving better. The bigger they are, the less they care about their customers.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online