Is There a Libertarian Argument for Breaking up Big Tech?: Podcast

Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and most of the 2020 presidential field agree that tech companies have too power. But maybe they don't like the competition.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Is There a Libertarian Argument for Breaking up Big Tech?: Podcast

Preston Ehrler/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) wants the federal government to forcibly break apart big technology companies. Most of her competitors for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination agree, as do conservative Fox News host Tucker Carlson and (at least occasionally) President Donald Trump. Are they right about the dangerous concentration of private power?

Largely no, argue Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, Peter Suderman, and me on the latest Editors' Roundtable edition of the Reason Podcast. Still, it's worth exploring just why it is people feel disquiet about our technological moment, and what are the best ways to address the associated underlying problems. Also coming under podcast scrutiny: Betomania, the Christchurch mass murderer, J.K. Rowling's auto-fanfic, and the legendary surf-rock guitar king Dick Dale.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

'Ragtime Dance' by Scott Joplin is licensed under Public Domain

Relevant links from the show:

"Elizabeth Warren Wants to Make Your Life More Annoying and More Expensive," by Peter Suderman

"Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Break Up Big Tech Would Be Bad for America," by David Harsanyi

"Facebook Had Every Right to Reject Elizabeth Warren's Crappy Ad," by Scott Shackford

"Silicon Valley May Rue the Day it Called for Government Intervention Against Microsoft," by Nick Gillespie

"Conservatives Are Wrong to Call for Government 'Trust Busting,'" by Steven Greenhut

"The Shitpost Terrorist," by Jesse Walker

"Has Phony Betomania Already Bitten the Dust?" by Matt Welch

"35 Heroes of Freedom," by the Reason staff

Don't miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at Apple Podcasts.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

What are we consuming this week?

Matt Welch

• The Birth of Loud: Leo Fender, Les Paul, and the Guitar-Pioneering Rivalry That Shaped Rock 'n' Roll by Ian Port

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• Harry Potter series

Nick Gillespie

• Dick Dale on Spotify

Peter Suderman

• Tom Clancy's The Division 2

---

Comments

[The Heresiarch]

Is there a libertarian argument for the Holocaust?

[kosanitut]

I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

>>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.AproCoin.CoM

[MikeVCrochet]

I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

>>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.payshd.com

[Longtorso, Johnny]

There is a libertarian argument for treating what goes out on Twitter as the same as what goes out in the NYTimes or WaPo; they are curating content enough to be have responsibility for what gets said in civil court.

There is no libertarian requirement for treating Twitter and FB differently than MSNBC.

[$park? is the Worst]

Coming as a shock to nobody, Johnny Longtorso says "YES!"

[mad.casual]

He didn't call for a breakup. What he did do was call for technology companies that stopped calling themselves technology companies and long ago opted to identify as media companies to be "regulated" like media companies.

Should we break up these tech companies? You mean those self-described media platforms? No, treat them like media platforms.

[$park? is the Worst]

Oh, so he's for regulation? That's certainly a more appropriate thing for libertarians to be for.

[mad.casual]

Oh, so he's for regulation? That's certainly a more appropriate thing for libertarians to be for.

That wasn't said either. I said "regulation" because there are large swaths of libertarians who would consider "being held legally or civically culpable for statements made and positions advanced" to be distinct from Regulation. Also, considering lots of conventional media companies these days can publish and advance outright lies, direct threats, and calls to violence without facing any legal culpability it's a considerable debate about how much more "regulated" they would be.

I will say that while I don't find many libertarians willing to compromise on litigating fraud, there are certainly plenty of libertarians who want to let people off for fraud as long as it's the right people with the right message.

[$park? is the Worst]

Ahhh, so it's the old "if we don't do something the bad guys will win" take, then.

[mad.casual]

Ahhh, so it's the old "if we don't do something the bad guys will win" take, then.

Not a lot of libertarians that would conflate the shielding of bad actors while they do bad things with doing nothing, but you're one of them I suppose.

[Magnitogorsk]

There is no libertarian argument for holding one party responsible for someone else's speech

[Longtorso, Johnny]

Treat the NY Times and Twitter the same legally. No violation of libertarian principles here.

[Magnitogorsk]

WaPo and NYT are also not held liable for user-submitted content (i.e. the comments sections) on their platform. They are treated exactly equally

[mad.casual]

(i.e. the comments sections)

What makes the comments sections unique? Do reporters enjoy some privilege that commenters don't or vice versa?

[Longtorso, Johnny]

Twitter is all front page.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Betteridge's Law of Headlines

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no

[Jerryskids]

I feel about this the same way I feel about capital punishment - it may be good in theory but there's no way in hell I'd trust government to be the one in charge of it. I'm sure foxes know lots about guarding henhouses but I still ain't hiring one.

[damikesc]

Are monopolies a Libertarian desire?

I do not see why they would be.

[$park? is the Worst]

Why?

[damikesc]

Don't see how an atomized market isn't vastly preferrable to one with a few massive, fossilized companies.

That's just me, though.

[MatthewSlyfield]

There are almost no industries where a true monopoly can exist for any significant amount of time absent government intervention.

The creation of monopolies, beyond a very localized level, generally requires the creation of artificial barriers to competitors entering the market.

[Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian]

Libertarians hate a competitive marketplace.

[Will Nonya]

If a politician says X is too powerful it isn't a statement of fact but rather an expression of envy. They dont think having that much power is bad they just want that power for themselves.

[Dillinger]

who's doing the break-upping?

[Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian]

OT: Amy Schumer reveals husband Chris Fischer has autism spectrum disorder but adds the symptoms made her fall 'madly in love' with him

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Who?!

[Archibald Baal]

That moment when the four high-level "editors" of your publication generate a sub-header with a typo.

"most of the 2020 presidential field agree that tech companies have too power"

[Dillinger]

funny was stuck on the question-mark-colon wtf

[Ray McKigney]

Ima go with "no."

[Colossal Douchebag]

I'ma go with this

[Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless]

Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and most of the 2020 presidential field agree that tech companies have too power. But maybe they don't like the competition.

Or, more likely, they're all a bunch of Fascist nitwits. Like the rest of them Leftists and Trumpistas.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

No, but if Reason writers followed the really big happenings on the internet, there could could be a libertarian-ish argument for dealing with the transgressions of Big Tech through an FTC complaint, to name just one.

[Sevo]

"Is There a Libertarian Argument for Breaking up Big Tech?"
Is this Onion?

[Colossal Douchebag]

It's really getting hard to tell

[Haystack]

HaHaaaaaa. I love her analogy. "You can be an umpire, or you can own one of the teams. You can't do both." what the hell does that have to do with anything. What she should say is "Look you can give the public what they want and give it to them for an affordable price. Then we will spit it up so you can no longer get both. We are the dictators who say what can and can't happen." That's what she really means.

[Gasherbrum]

Geez...What a headline....I see that others are playing. At least one person is asking for the libertarian argument for the Holocaust. While I can't touch that...

Is there a libertarian argument for fiat money? Central banking? Socialism?

Is there a libertarian argument for immigration law? Borders?

Is there a libertarian argument for....the nation state? Oh, say the US in particular?

[Radioactive]

flat money? isn't that a priori? unless you're talking about those huge salt wheels

[TJJ2000]

Leftist Politicians, "You've become an 'American Dream' success story by creating the worlds most useful and *popular* platforms and tools that all Americans enjoy. NOW, we need to use forcible 'Power' to destroy that 'American Dream' value. Take away everyone's freely *chosen* choices and demand a refund."

Slave, "I'd like to keep my freely-chosen and paid for Microsoft Windows! If I wanted Linux I'd go get it."
TOO BAD!!! Says 'Power' hungry snowflakes.

[Deconstructed Potato]

Hey Nick, I'm still not sure how you feel about Republicans. Could you be a little more explicit and interject with this view more often, please?

Spoiler alert: there are many Peter 'Brick' Suderman "LOUD NOISES" moments, and as usual KMW manages to be the only libertarian in the room.

[tivomo]

I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

>>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://xurl.es/HereTips

[Radioactive]

there must be an argument for breaking up Elizabeth Warren, there must...

[Deconstructed Potato]

She must break up with herself.

[Uncle Jay]

These Big Tech giants should not be broken up but placed under the thumb of The Ministry of Truth.
This way, the masses will enjoy only the information they need to know on a need to know basis.
A well indoctrinated collective is a willing and subservient collective.
(Goes back to memorizing passages from The Communist Manifesto.)

[jonoradel]

I am making 80$ an hour? After been without work for 8 months, I started freelancing over this website and now I couldn't be happier. After 3 months on my new job my monthly income is around 15k a month? Cause someone helped me telling me about this job now I am going to help somebody else?

Check it out for yourself ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

[FactsNotAttacks]

"Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, and most of the 2020 presidential field agree that tech companies have too power. But maybe they don't like the competition."

Please fix the typo. It shuld probs read "Tech companies have to much power"

[FactsNotAttacks]

*Should

[FreakazoidRobot]

The libertarian argument is simple. Free markets only function properly when there is sufficient competition. Monopolies do not allow for competition. Ergo, monopolies should be broken up.

[vek]

A though I have stated on this subject before is this:

Let us say we accept that a monopoly or near monopoly IS doing something bad, immoral, and generally shitty for the world at large... Okay. Personally I believe no monopoly can last FOREVER. Okay.

Here is the question then: Even if a company cannot last forever, if it is definitely doing things that have MASSIVE negative repercussions in the real world... How long SHOULD we tolerate it?

In the modern tech example, the media/tech collusion of being in the tank for commies has the power to swing an election. EASILY. Trump would not have won if social media were being censored as hard as it is now. He may not win re-election because of it.

So really, how much BS should we put up with for the sake of .003% higher GDP growth or whatever? Getting a commie elected could MORE than offset that with negatives. What if these near monopolies end up with a 40 year run before they go tits up? Should we allow that?

Just asking. Think it through for yourself. But with how bad they have got, I really don't mind a forced break up at this point. It won't do much/any economic harm, and I think they're doing plenty of damage with their abuses of power.