Alternatives to Big Tech

[NightTrain]

Came across this article tonight. Lists some alternatives and what we have talked of already.

---



WEB BROWSER:

Brave Browser: Brave boasts that it is “three times faster than Chrome. Better privacy by default than Firefox. Uses 35% less battery on mobile.” It also supports Tor browser on its desktop app, which helps protect you from the prying eyes of the sites you visit. Its Brave content community is funded via Basic Attention crypto tokens and opt-in ads. These tokens can be purchased on crypto exchanges or gained by choosing to view ads. This is what sustains the Brave business rather than harvesting and theft of all your user data. These tokens can also be given, if the user chooses, to content creators on websites they like. Unlike Google, Brave also says it doesn’t store any of your data.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...media-options/

I'm in Day 2 of testing the Brave browser for Android... and the claim that it's 3x faster isn't legit. It's about the same for speed as compared to Chrome, and I don't really have any way to test battery usage. That's not really a concern for me anyway.

I like the automatic ad blocker & anti-tracking features. They work well so far.

Tomorrow I'll try out Dissenter. I'm kind of partial to the little guy fighting Goliath anyway, and Gab / Dissenter certainly fits that bill.

[NightTrain]

I take that back - Brave is considerably faster than Chrome. I don't know about 3x faster, but I'd agree with twice as fast.

Probably due to the automatic ad blocking, I'd wager.

[revelarts]

I want to expand on my Comment earlier and
Post a few broad alternative in another post.


Seems to me there are couple of overarching options available.
the problem is they all require a certain amount of mass will, as consumers AND political citizens.
Some on the left want a gov't takeover of the massive platforms and see them as "public utilities" like the Post Office or Energy services which DO NOT discriminate.
Personally i'm not for that.
But I am 100% ANTI monopoly. And Anti it's evil twin, overt or covert corporate collusion/monopoly.
IMO the right makes an Idol out of "free enterprise" and doesn't see monopoly and corporate collusion as a problem that the civil gov't should come in and deal with.
At this point, I think we can all see that "competition" and the free market" DON'T always solve it's own problems via pure capitalism or "the market". And it NOT that easy to "just make a better one".
And if any one company or group of companies can control a function vital for life, at that point they can control WHO uses it or does not.
If someone controls all the Food Supply they control who EATS.

Capitalism is great, but at the same time it seems to me that conservatives and libertarians don't want to apply the axiom about "absolute power" when it comes to Capitalism. I've never been sure why not.

As far as answers go 1st of all there are no PERFECT systems or remedies.
But Decentralizing , Smaller companies competing across state and international lines. And none legally Allowed to get more than 25% - 45% of market share is one way i think could work.
Seems to me one of the best ways to deal with the MSSM (main stream social media) AND the MSM is by gov't break up of the monopolies. Maybe similar to what was done with MA BELL Telephone back in the day. (and It wasn't even BLOCKING PEOPLE PHONE CALLS) it was broken up into smaller companies.
At this point there may be actually 6 parent companies of the MSM.
and then 4 major Social media companies.
Plus at this point we have to talk about Internet banking and banking as well. Since banks have decide who can buy and sell via their companies. (while many of them dealt with Jeffery Epstein and knowingly launder drug money without a problem)
If they are going to play that game then they need busting up as well.

Either you're a service to everyone or you're limited to a certain amount of market share.

No company or group of companies should be able to regulate who can bank, who can communicate, who can travel, who can have energy, food and housing. Capitalism should not, by default of "success", give a small group of people control over others freedoms.
Capitalism should be a TOOL of freedom not a conceptual idol set above all other aspects of life.

Plus Decentralization is the basis of the benefits of capitalism. Decentralization was the basis for our federal gov'ts triune powers set-up.
Why? Because the founders understood from experience, history and yes Biblically that human beings can't be trusted with to much control. That with too much power seated in one place there's inevitably a reduction in freedom and often eventually tyranny.

So yeah, anyway ...
there's a lot of issues with the MSSM and internet compnies
Google and Amazon both are in bed with the federal gov't at this point as well. Plus are corporate donors to politicians.
Not to mention the internet surveillance problems
So yeah maybe this is the wake up call to deal with the internet/media in general.

Alternative "private" options are a start but it can't end there IMO.

[SassyLady]

Not just media but banking as well. Payment processing companies (i.e., PayPal, square, Visa, etc.) are shutting down businesses they don't agree with.

[Russ]

I want to expand on my Comment earlier and
Post a few broad alternative in another post.


Seems to me there are couple of overarching options available.
the problem is they all require a certain amount of mass will, as consumers AND political citizens.
Some on the left want a gov't takeover of the massive platforms and see them as "public utilities" like the Post Office or Energy services which DO NOT discriminate.
Personally i'm not for that.
But I am 100% ANTI monopoly. And Anti it's evil twin, overt or covert corporate collusion/monopoly.
IMO the right makes an Idol out of "free enterprise" and doesn't see monopoly and corporate collusion as a problem that the civil gov't should come in and deal with.
At this point, I think we can all see that "competition" and the free market" DON'T always solve it's own problems via pure capitalism or "the market". And it NOT that easy to "just make a better one".
And if any one company or group of companies can control a function vital for life, at that point they can control WHO uses it or does not.
If someone controls all the Food Supply they control who EATS.

Capitalism is great, but at the same time it seems to me that conservatives and libertarians don't want to apply the axiom about "absolute power" when it comes to Capitalism. I've never been sure why not.

As far as answers go 1st of all there are no PERFECT systems or remedies.
But Decentralizing , Smaller companies competing across state and international lines. And none legally Allowed to get more than 25% - 45% of market share is one way i think could work.
Seems to me one of the best ways to deal with the MSSM (main stream social media) AND the MSM is by gov't break up of the monopolies. Maybe similar to what was done with MA BELL Telephone back in the day. (and It wasn't even BLOCKING PEOPLE PHONE CALLS) it was broken up into smaller companies.
At this point there may be actually 6 parent companies of the MSM.
and then 4 major Social media companies.
Plus at this point we have to talk about Internet banking and banking as well. Since banks have decide who can buy and sell via their companies. (while many of them dealt with Jeffery Epstein and knowingly launder drug money without a problem)
If they are going to play that game then they need busting up as well.

Either you're a service to everyone or you're limited to a certain amount of market share.

No company or group of companies should be able to regulate who can bank, who can communicate, who can travel, who can have energy, food and housing. Capitalism should not, by default of "success", give a small group of people control over others freedoms.
Capitalism should be a TOOL of freedom not a conceptual idol set above all other aspects of life.

Plus Decentralization is the basis of the benefits of capitalism. Decentralization was the basis for our federal gov'ts triune powers set-up.
Why? Because the founders understood from experience, history and yes Biblically that human beings can't be trusted with to much control. That with too much power seated in one place there's inevitably a reduction in freedom and often eventually tyranny.

So yeah, anyway ...
there's a lot of issues with the MSSM and internet compnies
Google and Amazon both are in bed with the federal gov't at this point as well. Plus are corporate donors to politicians.
Not to mention the internet surveillance problems
So yeah maybe this is the wake up call to deal with the internet/media in general.

Alternative "private" options are a start but it can't end there IMO.

Rev, I loathe government control of private companies, but I think Twitter, Facebook and Amazon have stepped so far over the line with the recent attacks on free speech and policitally-motivated censorship that I'm actually starting to think that way.

Two options. Either trustbust these companies into separate, smaller companies, or else declare them utilities and have them regulated.
Maybe a third option is just to make it easy for anyone to sue these companies, and also list the CEO's as individual defendants. That might change their behavior.

Clearly, though, we can't let these companies act the way they are acting. It is 1984 in real life. The attacks on anyone who donated 5 bucks to a Republican candidate once or wore a MAGA hat once is another thing - next thing that will happen is AOC and Pelosi demanding that all Republicans wear yellow stars pinned to their shirts.

[fj1200]

I want to expand on my Comment earlier and
Post a few broad alternative in another post.

...

Alternative "private" options are a start but it can't end there IMO.

I think I take issue with a couple of your premises. While capitalism and free markets are great you seem to assume that we actually have the basic requirements; low barriers to entry, minimal government, equilibrium, perfect competition, etc. We don't really have all of those things. Don't say that capitalism is the problem when it's capitalism that brought us to where we are. I think it was a Stossel report, or Reason, or Cato that stated the problem with capitalism is capitalists. The basic argument is that you might have a large company that once it gets into a position of power then it becomes a fan of regulation. Regulation that of course has the goal of limiting competition for those already at the top. "Absolute power" is not an axiom that conservatives or libertarians would accept IMO; I wouldn't because I think capitalism is a check on itself, true capitalism with true competition that is.

Ma Bell actually was a monopoly at the time, none of the tech companies actually are. If you want to talk about remedies, true ones I think, you need to figure out why a monopoly or collusion exists as in which free market tenet is missing. All this is of course whistling in the wind given the current situation we find ourselves in but I think we need to be wary of declaring that we need government action to fix what ails us. I would think that most of us here think we have plenty of laws already on the books and I have zero expectation that any new law in the next couple of years is going to fix anything positively.

I guess my point is that let's not rush to headlong into a government solution because of unintended consequences and all. And remember, breaking up Ma Bell only resulted in separate local monopolies and only injected competition into the long distance market. Real local competition didn't show up until technology brought it to us.

[SassyLady]

I think I take issue with a couple of your premises. While capitalism and free markets are great you seem to assume that we actually have the basic requirements; low barriers to entry, minimal government, equilibrium, perfect competition, etc. We don't really have all of those things. Don't say that capitalism is the problem when it's capitalism that brought us to where we are. I think it was a Stossel report, or Reason, or Cato that stated the problem with capitalism is capitalists. The basic argument is that you might have a large company that once it gets into a position of power then it becomes a fan of regulation. Regulation that of course has the goal of limiting competition for those already at the top. "Absolute power" is not an axiom that conservatives or libertarians would accept IMO; I wouldn't because I think capitalism is a check on itself, true capitalism with true competition that is.

Ma Bell actually was a monopoly at the time, none of the tech companies actually are. If you want to talk about remedies, true ones I think, you need to figure out why a monopoly or collusion exists as in which free market tenet is missing. All this is of course whistling in the wind given the current situation we find ourselves in but I think we need to be wary of declaring that we need government action to fix what ails us. I would think that most of us here think we have plenty of laws already on the books and I have zero expectation that any new law in the next couple of years is going to fix anything positively.

I guess my point is that let's not rush to headlong into a government solution because of unintended consequences and all. And remember, breaking up Ma Bell only resulted in separate local monopolies and only injected competition into the long distance market. Real local competition didn't show up until technology brought it to us.

Politicians being bought. Lobbying should be outlawed. Donations by organizations outlawed. That might mean more laws. Of course it's harder to legislate corruption.

[fj1200]

Politicians being bought. Lobbying should be outlawed. Donations by organizations outlawed. That might mean more laws. Of course it's harder to legislate corruption.

Lobbying is constitutional. Donations as speech is constitutional (see Citizens United). Remove the power of government and you remove the necessity of lobbying.

[revelarts]

I think I take issue with a couple of your premises. While capitalism and free markets are great you seem to assume that we actually have the basic requirements; low barriers to entry, minimal government, equilibrium, perfect competition, etc. We don't really have all of those things. Don't say that capitalism is the problem when it's capitalism that brought us to where we are. I think it was a Stossel report, or Reason, or Cato that stated the problem with capitalism is capitalists. The basic argument is that you might have a large company that once it gets into a position of power then it becomes a fan of regulation. Regulation that of course has the goal of limiting competition for those already at the top. "Absolute power" is not an axiom that conservatives or libertarians would accept IMO; I wouldn't because I think capitalism is a check on itself, true capitalism with true competition that is.

Ma Bell actually was a monopoly at the time, none of the tech companies actually are. If you want to talk about remedies, true ones I think, you need to figure out why a monopoly or collusion exists as in which free market tenet is missing. All this is of course whistling in the wind given the current situation we find ourselves in but I think we need to be wary of declaring that we need government action to fix what ails us. I would think that most of us here think we have plenty of laws already on the books and I have zero expectation that any new law in the next couple of years is going to fix anything positively.

I guess my point is that let's not rush to headlong into a government solution because of unintended consequences and all. And remember, breaking up Ma Bell only resulted in separate local monopolies and only injected competition into the long distance market. Real local competition didn't show up until technology brought it to us.

Hey FJ!
Ok look
I think a bit of what i mentioned you're displaying here, an idolization of "Capitalism".
saying "if practiced properly" it will correct any problems.
Sorry, I don't agree for 2 main reasons.
1st there's no check on monopoly built into the system. NONE. the only self check is competition. but if a company(s) (with or without go'vt protection/assistance) buys all the land and hold the means of production of a market sector there's NOTHING to break it except a completely new innovation outside of the ownership of the monopoly that replaces/makes obsolete the product or service.
like the cars replacing horses. Other than that the Company town situation cannot be overcome. Where the company owns everything of real value. The Rich get richer under pure or impure capitalism.
(You've seen 'it's a wonderful life' right? "Pottersville" anyone? Jonnhy cash song '16 tons' "I owe my soul to the company store"?)

2nd You mention the problem with capitalism is Capitalist. YES. Exactly, Human beings. look morally Capitalism only ASSUMES some measure of moral fairness and assumes private property rights and Assumes gov't will protect those rights. After those moral assumptions, it then assumes/acknowledges the darker natural nature of people to do what's in their best interest. PERIOD. full stop.
There's NO moral check on any Capitalist NOT to try to control a market(s) and control it's customers views or lives on any matter. The MORE success/power/influence/control a corporation has, doesn't grant the owners any REASON ,born of capitalism, NOT to use it in anyway they choose.

Mom and Pop Shops, Sweat Shops, Slavery, 9orn Sites and banning customers from all public communications ALL live well within CAPITALISM'S house. With or without gov't input/influence.

Again that's NOT to say the CAPITALISM is evil by default. Just that it's NOT enough. There's NO perfect system, becasue people aren't perfect.
But the Gov't can be an IMPERFECT check on a Decent and effective but imperfect CAPITALISM.

Like i said seems to me decentralize, multiple Capitalist options is THE BEST. That's where all the benefits really live for the most people.
But seems clear to me from history that at some point Capitalism breaks when things get to centralized. Which is what often happens.

Politicians being bought. Lobbying should be outlawed. Donations by organizations outlawed. That might mean more laws. Of course it's harder to legislate corruption.

Agreed, Corporate Lobbying should be outlawed. corporations are NOT people or Citizens. But easier said than done. needs BI-PARTISAN grassroots pressure.

Lobbying is constitutional. Donations as speech is constitutional (see Citizens United). Remove the power of government and you remove the necessity of lobbying.

Sure A lot of the power of Gov't should be "removed" but what FJ? You may be more libertarian than most conservatives. But the Mitt Romneys, Donald Trumps and DCheeney types LOVE big Gov't, Love lockheed Martin and Wall street style influence and connection. They are not purist when it comes to capitalist ideals. most conservatives are not purist on ANY ideals. And many will vote for wall st establishment capitalist. (Because we're told the alternative is 100% USSR style socialism!)
So, Yes the gov't can and does muddy the waters even more sometimes. At times working WITH/FOR the behemoths, sometimes stiffing competition hard.
there's plenty of examples of that in nearly every industry.
But most rank and file conservatives don't fight that either becasue we've been told that we're "fighting" (the IDOL of) capitalism. And we should all expect the bennies to "tickle down" form the hands of the Big Biz. Trust "capitalism".

Sorry, i don't buy it and more people see the problems today than ever.
Capitalism, limited by honest gov't AND personal morals is Great. Capitalism as an idol is bs.

[Abbey Marie]

Lobbying is constitutional. Donations as speech is constitutional (see Citizens United). Remove the power of government and you remove the necessity of lobbying.

Power vacuums are readily and easily filled.