She want to be the moderate candidate, but moderates are waiting for Biden, the rest want lefty candidates. Edit: I may be confusing her with the candidate from Minnesota.
Winning statewide office with 2/3 of the vote gives many women in New York visions of grandeur. (Well, two women actually.)
If only there was an organization that could step in and mandate rules on how data can be used by companies when we the people are being stupid.
Right, and 7up will tell you that they are healthier than Cola because they don't have caffeine. As a consumer I can choose not to drink either. I also can choose to ignore stupid browser messages, and go with the one that works best for me. (I use Firefox). Of course, if a company feels their competitors are guilty of unfair competition, there's the court system available to them. If a consumer group thinks the consumer is being lied to, the same applies. Take it before a judge, and let it be dealt as it should, and if they are found to have done something illegal, let them pay accordingly for that. That doesn't mean that we should call them a monopoly and break them up. Frankly, that is an idiotic take.
You don't seem to understand the basic problem here. It isn't that the various companies are dominant in a single industry (so soft drinks in your example), the problem is that they abuse their dominance in one industry to break into and dominate another industry.
I know, people give up all that information at their own peril. It's like these DNA companies, that promise to tell you your heritage and health risks. I get offered that all the time. I ask myself, do I want some company to have my DNA? Is it worth it to know that I'm 25 percent French or whatever? I already know where my grandparents came from, and what they died of, so I'll stay with that.
That's precisely my point. That was handled appropriately, by a judge, based on what apparently was a legitimate complaint from the FTC about misconduct, and not by a politician trying to cash in on resentment against successful businesses. But what's wrong with going into other industries? Lets say Google comes up with a better driverless car, do you think we need to protect Ford and GM because theirs aren't as good?
I have been temped to use one, but yes the idea of them having that data on me scares the shit out of me. Think Deleting Your Facebook Profile Is Hard? Try Deleting Your Genomic Data. You can’t un-spit into that test tube. https://futurism.com/home-dna-genomic-data
And it's already being sent through the European courts. That does not, however, mean that the US can't regulate companies that have an established history of behaving in non-competitive ways from continuing to do so. Your use of this example proves that, yet again, you still don't understand the basic problem despite having it explained to you multiple times. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to repeat myself since you appear to be incapable and/or unwilling to understand the basic problem here. Literally no one is saying that these companies can't diversify. What they are saying is that they can't use anti-competitive tactics to diversify and, in the case of Warren's proposal, introducing regulations that manage how they can use the existing dominance in certain markets to diversify.
I think the disagreement is if it's A) anti-competitive (it might be, but I lean towards it not), B) illegal (don't think so), and C) unethical (which I don't believe it is). I understand that you believe google and facebook and amazon uses anti-competitive tactics to enter in cloud computing, internet ads, etc -but you see as anti-competitive, I view as simply competing at a really high level.
She is trying to make something out of nothing. Whatever laws and regulations may be needed already exist, as your MS example shows. If indeed it can be proved that there is wrongdoing, that as you allege illegal anti-competitive tactics are being used, then that can be determined in front of a judge, without coming up with all that bullshit about breaking companies up and/or creating new unnecessary regulations. What we have is a politician who is unnecessary bringing up the names of all the most successful Silicon Valley companies, trying to stir up resentment among her anti-corporation base, just as Trump regularly does by attacking those groups his own base resents, and rightly gets criticized for doing.
There is absolutely necessary legislation needed with regards about protecting your data. There is zero laws on the books that stop any of the big tech companies from sellings your personal data to the highest bidders. It just says tell the consumer what they give rights to, but the Terms of Service are so long and so filled with legalese that it's absurd.
Yes, I also believe that better protection for our private information is something that should definitely be brought up, although of course not in the specific context of targeting large high tech companies. We need to better define what is private information and how to protect it, and make sure everybody, regardless of size, respects that.
What if he does? He's going to sign an executive order today regarding freedom of speech on public school campuses who's spirirt I can get behind (I don't know what the EO specifically says yet). He can have the greatest legislation ever and won't make a bit of a difference to me. Mark Salter, a long time aide to Sen. McCain and thus a long time conservative, was on NPR this morning. He said that Trump and his destructive ways aren't worth a couple of points dropped on Tax Rates. There's literally no legislation, or accumulated legislation, that can redeem his behavior as President or as a human being. None.