> Forcing Google to give up one of its best products is effectively eminent domain by the government to a private company.

What's wrong with that?

▲

Ray20 2 days ago | parent [-]

> What's wrong with that?

The absence of a clear objective boundary of what can be taken and what cannot.

And without such a boundary, such a practice could be quite widespread, with the poorest and smallest actors being the first to be subjected to it, simply because it is easier to take from them and they do not have sufficient influence on the distributing bodies. This is like theory of building socialism 101

▲

komali2 a day ago | parent [-]

> The absence of a clear objective boundary of what can be taken and what cannot.

I don't understand why this is an obstacle - this issue already exists with writing laws and various countries have different solutions, all of which seem to be working kinda ok. There's the USA's constitution which isn't working so well in most cases but working great in others (free speech for example, though this is now failing), whereas other countries depend on histories of case law for example (UK).

It seems to me that if a government specifically sought to target the largest and richest actors it could avoid the issue you're speaking of. Of course this would require removing the ability of capital to influence politics, maybe that's the issue you mean?

▲

Ray20 a day ago | parent [-]

>free speech for example, though this is now failing

I don't quite understand what you mean.

The great advantage of the American constitution in terms of freedom of speech is that it sets a relatively clear boundary. And it is obvious that in this regard the constitution copes with its task perfectly: freedom of speech in the USA is currently protected better than in any other country.

It is so well protected that Americans were able to elect Trump as their leader, despite the fact that more than 80 percent of the mainstream media openly opposed him, and the government tried to shut the mouths of all his supporters under the guise of fighting dis- and misinformation (regardless of how we feel about his personality and presidency).

So if we look at the freedom of speech in the current US on a historical scale, we see exactly the opposite of what you saying: we see how freedom of speech in the US has once again stood firm despite the strongest opposition.

> Of course this would require removing the ability of capital to influence politics

You describe it as if it is something ordinary, not something catastrophic. Just to understand, if the government gets enough power to deprive capital of ability to influence politics - we get Nazi Germany or Russia. In the best case. At worst - the USSR, North Korea or Kampuchea

	▲	komali2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> freedom of speech in the USA is currently protected better than in any other country. I don't know every country so I'm not sure if this is true, but it seems to me free speech was decently well protected up to a certain point and so long as you didn't threaten American hegemony. For example there was a long era where you were able to be jailed for being a communist or speaking out against American wars. Or often speech as protest, such as during the civil rights era, was violently put down. Aesthetically Americans seem to enjoy decent free speech but only so long as it doesn't meaningfully challenge the government. Protests are almost always violently suppressed in America it seems. Recently the Americans' free speech rights seem to be degrading even further with media being ejected from the press room or sued by the president. Not to mention the chilling effect of calls by prominent politicians to do violence (typically deportation) to various dissidents such as anti Israeli voices. Other countries elect unpopular politicians, that's not really unique. The American right to call for violence or use slurs against minorities is I suppose unique, I'm not sure why someone would be proud that that right remains unsullied when the bits of free speech that actually matter are being stripped away but so it goes. > Just to understand, if the government gets enough power to deprive capital of ability to influence politics - we get Nazi Germany or Russia. In the best case. At worst - the USSR, North Korea or Kampuchea I find this very interesting because you're the first person I've met to openly defend corruption, or the American word for it, lobbying. Most neoliberals want to "keep the good parts of capitalism" but argue that money shouldn't be able to influence politics. Or maybe you draw the line somewhere between corruption and not corruption, when discussing money influencing politics? If so where's that line for you? The PRC for a while had virtually 0 influence of capital against their government and now they're the second most powerful country on earth - arguably the most powerful, if we compare the ability of either executive leader to control the military (the parade comparison is... embarrassing to say the least). Of course capital still has some influence in the PRC but seems to be not as much as the USA given the PRC will happily nationalize things to this day, or chuck billionaires it doesn't like in prison. Taiwan seems to have less corruption the USA. The KMT are obscenely wealthy and yet still struggle to get their policy through, and have had a couple of their media stations pulled off air for corruption. The EU seems to often act against the interests of capital, as well as member nations to a certain degree. I'd be surprised if you denied this since capitalists often use this as evidence FOR the superiority of capitalism against socialism, since America's gdp is so high and businesses prefer to incorporate there. So it seems to me that Nazi Germany, Russia, USSR, North Korea are more political failures than economic ones. The Soviet Union after all did industrialize the entire empire and was the only serious challenger to American hegemony for decades. Not that I'm a fan but it was hardly a failure until it dissolved - a fate which may befall the United States after all.