text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
But third, lower pricing also takes a long time to kick in and often has to grow through many stages of the supply chain. So often you have to take a cut at every level, and often it kind of trickles to the consumer. They don't actually face that much of a price cut, so you don't actually improve consumer welfare by that much, but you also don't have browsers to these companies. |
Therefore, what this means is that most of the benefits you want to talk about may exist, but we already cannot be outweighed by the sheer harm that we provide on our side of the house. These things are going to happen in most parts. |
Secondly, let's talk about the politicization of the FSC and regulatory bodies. Things like their leftists—you can see them as corrupt, they're political—then you have to select like really harsh regulators, which means less enforcement for regulation. |
<poi> |
lots of firms outside of tech, externalities, and concentration applies to them too. And OB isn't about how much antitrust is saying; it's more of a chilling effect because of higher risk. Last time we asked about cross subsidization and got to respond on economies of scale, you responded precisely to what I've asked. |
</poi> |
Look, the biggest profit in competitive behavior, respectfully, has always been in big tech. If you read the recent news, but if it's like, if it's not big tech companies, fine. If you're polluting rivers and killing people, we find you should also get punished on your side of the house. |
Second, breaking up big is bipartisan by most part. Judge the left thinks it's anti-competitive; the right thinks it’s really bad. I don't know what issue they have on off. |
Second, there's a game disincentive to politicize antitrust bodies by the tech because for the very reason that often if one company can do it, the other company feels they lose out. So there's a collective collusion to decide not to do it. |
Third, courts are likely to be reasonable because they don't want to scare away any investment in companies too, because often they realize if that is the case, they lose the exact funding that they actually want, as per the opposition case. |
But even if you don't believe any of these reasons, our argumentation is that fine, maybe you let cage regulators, but at best we think the harm of that is not nearly as large compared to what we before on Raya's case. Very proud to propose. |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Consumers saving money on a smartphone means they spend on other goods, creating jobs for low-income workers. who wouldn't have jobs otherwise and wouldn't have the money to access healthcare. Technological innovation is more than that, though. Companies engaging in technological innovation have been the driver of economic growth for the past centuries, and economic growth improves living standards. It gives societies the resources and tax revenue they need to invest in clean technology. A lot of these companies are investing in clean technology. |
Antitrust enforcement, in order to help the environment, has often been used to block consolidation in the green energy sector on the basis that, potentially, this helps the green energy sector develop. This prevents oil companies from taking up patents, but oil companies investing in the green energy sector is critical to ensure solar panels get developed in time. These are large impacts, and these are concentrated impacts. |
Here's the problem with arguments about health, life and death, and environmental harms: their mechanism for antitrust helping is literally that antitrust will punish these companies, which causes them to not do this. We have another mechanism of punishing companies this way: fines. Regulations work in the specific context that antitrust wants to regulate. Because all arguments about not adapting your technology don't apply that way, that just regulates firms engaging in things like environmental damage, which is deterring them by using antitrust to break them up. |
This form of deterrence is better accomplished through targeted regulation. Now, I want to address their specific arguments on why this is primarily about innovation and what the harm in tech is. The first claim they make is more innovation. They say there is more lending for smaller tech companies because they won't be killed by a large company. Flip this argument: small tech depends on big tech. |
There are a number of reasons why antitrust enforcement that blocks mergers and acquisitions that tech companies engage in ensures small tech companies can't develop and can't innovate. Reason one: big tech can potentially buy up small tech firms. Small tech companies struggle to compete precisely because of the network effects that big tech makes. If you start a social media company, investors are going to be terrified to invest in you. Why? Because a social media company needs lots of users, but users are attracted by other users already being present on the platform. |
This deters investors from wanting to invest in a small tech company, even if it creates a social media company that has a critical new innovation that people want to access. However, investors will invest in a small tech company if they realize that this new innovation is also something a big social media platform that has users in use, for example, Facebook, can buy. WhatsApp led to the initial investment in WhatsApp. |
That for a social media company that was a messaging platform, or even if the company's media platform itself doesn't get used, the innovations that it creates can be leased out to big tech firms because big tech firms want the innovation from them. This is also why they want to simply block out these firms or prevent them from existing or run them into the ground using lawsuits. Because if it's right, small tech firms have some advantages. For example, they don't suffer from diseconomies of scale. |
Big tech firms want to use those advantages for their own consumer markets, and the way they use those advantages is by giving them money to lease technology from them, which is why they don't just run these companies into the ground. This means small companies have some advantages, but these advantages depend on getting investment, and this investment depends on the existence of large tech corporations. This is why the greatest political advocates for small tech in the U.S., people like Mark and VCs like Andreessen Horowitz, oppose antitrust enforcement on big tech companies. |
Their second mechanism is democracy: that aggregation allows you access to data, and this poses a threat to democracy. The first argument here I want to flip is that there is a greater risk of social media companies trying to influence politics on their side of the house for two structural reasons. One, currently social media companies face substantial amounts of PR pressure and do not interfere in democracy. This is particularly large in firms like Facebook. Facebook lost substantial amounts and breached public relations standards as a direct result of their contribution to the Rohingya genocide and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, facing being grilled in Congress and activist investors dropping Facebook stock. |
Facebook's stock dropped so sharply after the 2016 election, which created substantial pressure on Facebook to try to seem politically neutral and project political neutrality. However, this calculus changes for Facebook in a world where they believe antitrust regulators are more likely to be after them because then they want to influence governments to prevent over-aggressive regulations of their industries. |
You preempt the act before antitrust enforcers can get to you to do things like misuse user data. But second, they don't actually explain why antitrust enforcement works in this space. Because suppose you break Facebook up into a bunch of different social media companies. Their own network effects mechanism proves that a lot of the users will still stay on Facebook. So you break Facebook up into multiple companies; a bunch of users go to the other platforms, but they realize other users aren't following them into these platforms, so they go back onto Facebook. |
The rise of newer and smaller tech companies in response to Facebook antitrust likely increases political influence. Why? Because smaller tech companies, in order to survive, are the ones that do survive at the end of an antitrust lawsuit. They are the ones who are likely to attract a lot of users. For example, the only one that will survive when you split Facebook and WhatsApp up is WhatsApp, which will keep all its users, and a bunch of users will use both WhatsApp and Facebook. |
Here's a distinction, however: when a bunch of users use both WhatsApp and Facebook but they have different owners or new owners who face less public scrutiny because they are smaller companies, once they have been broken up, you're more likely to have owners who want to use the social media platform to push a political agenda. This is what happened with Parler, which is the social media platform much smaller than any of the platforms Facebook owns. It is the one that was actually politicized in the 2016 election. |
No, thank you. This is why the regulation does actually work at accomplishing the objectives they want; however, it does hurt innovation. And here I want to explain why other industries are also meaningfully affected by this standard. Because their argument is basically that these industries aren't very concentrated, so they have less of an influence. So it's unlucky that regulators who get that. before that opening. |
<poi> |
Even if you prove that more mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are good, this debate is also about regulations of general business conduct... |
</poi> |
Ya ya ya, And the regulation of general business conduct one-stop mergers and acquisitions, two, splitting companies apart, three, punishing behavior that attempts to get firms to expand or become larger, or cover a larger number of industries or diversify in these sectors. So that's the reason why M&A being there doesn't affect our case. |
Because other kinds of business conduct are also affected. Why is it unlucky that other industries are also overwhelmingly affected? One, if it's a less concentrated industry, antitrust is more likely to be a threat to democracy because it means a single large company has some potential capacity to lobby while other firms don't have it, and therefore the large company uses lobbying in order to influence other firms. |
Second, if it's a less concentrated industry, you're more able to fight an antitrust case. Regulators want wins, and antitrust cases give them access to settlements, which is why they try to get wins. Third, many of the specific impacts are relevant, like environmental protection standards or media companies for the use of the standard against ABC. |
In this context, I want to be crystal clear: you get way too much of this because the opening opposition's justification is that you might get some office judges; you might get some conservative judges. Here's the problem, as my point out, unpopularity might limit that. This is why business extension comes in: there is a conflict of interest. The government appoints judges, but it gets money by building antitrust cases through antitrust settlements. |
This conflict of interest results in over-policing, and this is where the impacts come in. We explained the argument on economies of scale, a larger impact than cross-subsidization, because cross-subsidization might lower prices in one bloated, unproductive industry, while economies of scale lead to lower prices for every single consumer good and create jobs in a lot company to expand. Propose. |
</ow> |
Motion: This house would attend the Queer Liberation March rather than the Stonewall50 March. |
<pm> |
PM Speech Transcript: |
is the motion for this round is this house will attend queer liberation March, rather than the Stonewall50 March, |
Any movement of political organization is about offering unique benefits that could be achieved through other venues of discussion. Within the stone wall 50 March has lost its core political character and is providing benefits regarding benefits that are no longer exclusive in the modern era. After this debate is like a society, but specifically the LGBTQ community in which in March they should attend and pour their resources in too. |
And as I highlight, the key strategic effect of this debate is about the unique benefits or harms occurred by each of the different prior marches, and why ours is preferable to Stonewall50. The argument I'm going to make is that it makes political messaging and perception better than on the OP comparative, that it undermines Clyde's key role when it is so banal and non-political in an attempt for mass appeal, and prevents better action from taking place in the long run. |
So on that argument of politics and messaging, the thesis of this argument is that Stonewall50 is worse or compared to the queer liberation marks at getting unique benefits. What are the unique benefits we think that Pride marches should provide? Firstly, it's about organizing the community towards external policy based goals that will improve the lives of the queer community around the world. This is what the stone Wall mark originally was about, about protesting police treatment of the LGBTQ community, about protesting policy that harmed them from the state, and organizing politically to address that. But secondly, it's meant to provide a venue to learn about LGBTQ history, to highlight the horrible things that happened to them in the past and are continuing to this day. And thirdly, it's to highlight that acceptance and tolerance is not enough, that it's not enough to just tolerate somebody who is different from you. You should go further to create a world in which it is easier for them to live, where they are given the policy benefits that need to help them. Why does the Stonewall March fail in achieving these particular things? |
Firstly, it has no clear political message. Why is this the case for structural reasons? Firstly, in order to have mass appeal to the wider society, it has watered down its political message to the point of non-existence. At the point of which you want to get straight people to attend the march. You can't really do that when the march is focused on saying that straight, heteronormative society is a problem and something that we need to attack. When you're trying to get corporations into the march, highlighting anti LGBTQ policies in corporate hiring is not something that is going to likely get them to show up. So by attempting to get mass appeal, whether you've done that, has made it less political, made an excuse to have a party and seeing fun rather than something that's actually going to further the political ambitions of the LGBTQ community. But secondly, corporations have a structural incentive to have it be less political. Why is that the case? Because you're a corporation, you have many consumer bases that you want to cater to. One of them is the LGBTQ community, but others are more right wing or conservative individuals who have you attached yourself to an explicitly political LGBTQ message are less likely to be willing to buy your product or willing to get backlash from your consumers. What you attach yourself to is so actively political, so corporations have an incentive to fund the Pride marches that are more moderate, to push those more than actively political things, to attempt to convince the organizers that having a more moderate margin thing that they should particularly achieve. |
Why is this so particularly harmful? Firstly, it abdicates one of prides key historical functions, which is a ground for political organization to discuss within the LGBTQ community what we need, what will allow us to push forward into the future and create a better role. Those key political functions of organization and activism, of creating that activist culture are undermined when pride has lost that key political function of organization but moreover. It's not just the internal political organization of the community, but the application of a key platform, the key area, and a place where you can distribute your ideology, where you have marches in the street, they're actively political and able to distribute information, someone that the public has no choice but to pay attention to, because of its publicity and because of its wide presence. So the application of that key political platform, because of the non political measure of the Stonewall 50 March, is particularly harmful. |
The second reason why I think it has failed its goals is that the presence of non members of the LGBTQ community make it actively exclusionary to certain individuals. There are members of the LGBTQ community who are actively oppressed by the police, who are members of ethnic minorities, who are trans and thus more likely to be the target of police violence and abuse, these groups are less likely to be involved and actively participate in your activism at the point where you are including actors in the March who they see as antithetical to them. And this doesn't just have effects within the LGBTQ community, but it has effects between the LGBTQ community and other left wing activist organizations. There was a massive fight between Black Lives Matter and Pride marches because Pride marches were allowed police to march in their activities. |
The reason why this is so harmful is when activist movements are able to band together to have unity and support across intersectional characteristics, that's when you have a broader base of support to get political exchange, and you have allies with other organizations who are more willing to help and assist you, but when you include actors in the March who are antithetical to them, That's when you're less likely to get that political organization and political support that is so crucial for getting changed. |
Why is the queer liberation March particularly better? Personally, there is more political discussion. You don't need to water down your message for mass appeal. You don't have the issue of sponsorship and corporations who often prevent you from having an active political message. Yes, |
<poi> |
talked a lot about messages getting water down. Maybe it would help if you like explain some of those messages that you think not currently out really think come out these messages. |
</poi> |
so I think a couple of things. One, highlighting that tolerance isn't enough and you need active political change in order to get policy highlight the problems with trans community faces that is often left out of priorities because it's too political and too controversial, highlighting how corporations often have systemic and homophobic cultures that doesn't get adequately highlighted. Matt would be happy to talk about that a lot more. |
Secondly, will be more community focused. The fact that this will be less allies, or less just random people from the general population means that you're more likely to have an internal discussion within the LGBT community, which allows you to create an internal conception of what we need, what you particularly want and desire. |
Lastly, I want to make one argument about perception, because the Pride March effectively become an excuse for a party, a demonstration of hedonism, because that's one of the ways they attempted to have mass appeal. But this perception of hedonism of the Stonewall50 March is harmful for perception, because it feeds into stereotypes of the LGBTQ community as degenerates, as people who are doing extreme activities beyond the realm of what are socially acceptable in that society, and it removes them from being an active political force that the population of political actors should be concerned with Stonewall50 doesn't offer the unique benefits that pride should be able to provide the queer liberation March does it should impact proud to pose. |
</pm> |
<lo> |
The basis of opposition is really clear. We will first tell you why is progression still not to include more individuals to the Q lib has traditionally attracted, and why that's better than structurally happening at the moment. But second, we'll tell you what values do individuals ordinarily subscribe to, and why that is incoherent with the movement as the Q lib in a way in which is manifest over the past two years before your conception. The last thing we'll do is tell you why protests attend this form of protesting change, and why the other attending say, Q lib just makes individuals, or intercept communities highly bad, queer, LGBT individuals more worse off as a. Result of this |
first, I think it’s important to characterize Q lib beyond just what said. Because, true, it's not politically there is no police support, but the result of that has been pretty atrocious in the sense that oftentimes these marches have become violent, they divisive in the way in which they concentrate their efforts and its political message. To put it in a euphemistic way, that trenten is oftentimes very singular that oftentimes excludes a lot of individuals from participating. And so in that sense, what we argue is that there's one class of it, the other class of it is not as common. That is, you can't find your own community to march with in as many areas as you could with total this extremely important framing, because it means any sort of movement isn't just the contingent on savior, clear message that it brings, but also the ability of which it is to spread awareness and stop individuals from voting against LGBT interests. |
The first thing, why is Stonewall better? Now, I think there are few changes that they realized over the few years. The first is in 2017 where they changed the prime police individuals to protect Gay Pride marches as black cops, because it was a fair of, say, black LGBT individuals getting police reviews from individuals there. The second thing was that they organized specific queer POC movements and leaders who have formed the leaders of those white marches due to a growing trend of maximizing participation. There are three reasons why that's the case. The first reason, the first structured reason, why football has changed for the better, is because oftentimes the mainstream, rare interest in American is like gay marriage for the largest part, has shifted, and that has been fulfilled. And so I shifted to more intersectional concerns, especially the rise of more intersection concerns and Black Lives Matter the second, the second is in an attempt to capitalize on more niche markets, given that the mainstream market has been capitalized very efficiently, they need to appeal to individuals who otherwise been on the outlandish on the outskirts of the community. The third is that a huge criticism of the LGBT media, its association of bad corporations, that meant that the movement in itself has tried to influence corporations relations sponsors. So the relationship isn't necessarily one dimensional that is the that is Stonewall50 has that increasing effort to get corporations to reform in areas where their profits are dependent on, say, a lot are partly dependent on, say, the advertising on that particular platform. And that's important. |
The reason why it's important that is when we argue that Stonewall provides the kind of March that an individual who's either career or an ally can able to ascribe to the best. What do individuals who have ascribed these values for one three things. |
The first, in main is mainstream acceptance, either intersectional or not, for people to recognize that you're just as anyone else. The second is very important is group, solidarity with community, to get behind them in all instances. And the third is literally just a day to celebrate the progress of how far you've come in the way in which you succeeded to liberating many of the oppression that's happening in the world. |
Why does Q lib fail in that? And the reason why it fails at a fundamental level is because oftentimes it's extremely scrutiny when it's angry. It is always obstructionist in nature. It's not celebratory in nature, in all instances. And the reason why it's strongly tends to that is because there's not much regulation, not much in terms of moderation, things like, for example, the lack of risk or the lack of interest has meant that individuals can often type individuals with more extreme or violent interests can hijack the protest more easily, and that means, to a large extent, the marches that you talk about here aren't about celebration, but often a cry against, say, the current situation, but not just something that can allow people to celebrate the best way possible. |
The second thing, I think it's important, and it's a comparison, that is, if it's a perceptional problem on humanism, on opening government, the same perceptional problem is on humanism exists on either side. The reason is because people often associate this with the idea of the LGBT, not necessarily the specific protest, at least for the people they are talking about but at the same time, the perceptional problem also happens for the Q lib movement. So there's not much difference on that. It's a wash. What is the difference, though, is to do with the Stonewall50 and why it's more appropriate, the reason why it works is due to a few things. I think the important thing to note is that funding and political support goes a long way in getting certain policies changed. Now, the biggest criticism to this is the fact that there's no clear political message. I would point to two things. The first is, in the lead up to gay marriage, for example, there's a very clear political message there to banners, etc, that continue to exist in different forms of policy platforms right now, on the marches. But second is, if you look at the manifestation of Stonewall50 in different countries, you look at pink dot in Singapore when the light that they shine to repeal section 377A, in most cases, what we say is that whether it's a platform, individuals are able to express these political messages, it says that now it's more diverse. The pictures and videos you see show different avenues and different platforms that cannot exist and don't get the same sort of traction compared to Q Lib. |
And what's important then is that I think the kind of the kind of change it gets here is on one level, awareness for the second level. I think the reason why it's awareness is important because oftentimes the kinds of policy we talk about aren’t directly antithetical to the individuals who are likely to vote against that. Individuals just need to know that it's fine and it's necessarily a good thing that individuals, every individuals, have their rights, and so. The level of awareness actually very key and crucial part to getting many of those policies going forward, because camera doesn't really affect anyone, in a sense, that one who is not queer but what happened? What happens instead, is that these individuals need to know that it's fine not to vote against them. And this is one platform in which that happens, but the second reason why it's important, because it helps inside individuals before I’ll take closing. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.