Seems like this proposal is essentially just anti-trust legislation. I'm all for it. What I particularly like about it is that she's demonstrating her commitment to the citizenry, not to the Democratic party. She's not only going after coal companies or traditional (R) strongholds. She's taking on tech, a left-leaning industry, too. This is the type of bipartisanship I think we need to see in candidates and politicians.
I fully support this move. And tech companies are going to fight her tooth and nail.
Both are dubious and shouldn't be her first priorities.
I can elaborate:
1. Breaking up Google doesn't sound like the biggest problem right now. How about Comcast? How about Equifax? Those are monopolies and act in bad faith. Why is Google the top of her list?
2. Income inequality is not an important goal. I don't care if Bezos has 100 trillion dollars. I want affordable healthcare, education and a good life.
It makes me feel reluctant to vote for her.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner...
Life as we know it depends on Google's products and services more than we ever did on Microsoft. They have Search, OS, Browser, Device and Service under one brand. Not to mention analytics and advertising on those properties and systems.
Taking advantage of that position at the expense of participants/customers is wrong and should be prevented.
That's what monopoly busting is about - AT&T, MSFT, Alphabet/Google, makes no difference.
You can apply the same principles to health care, credit and for profit colleges. She does.
It's a big campaign issue (for Warren, and simultaneously not really a big campaign issue otherwise) because Warren is far behind the leading candidates, in a distant third or fourth place depending on the poll, so she's trying to use big concrete policy proposals like this to gain traction.
> Why not break up Walmart while we're at it?
She has other policies that would target Walmart, too.
In any case, care to elaborate?
I mean, that would _normally_ be common sense. Seems weird to even have to point this out.
It's using a singular product to do what that singular product doe; which is fine. I can advocate Johnson and Johnson be fined for anti-competitive practices and still buy a stupid band-aid without abandoning my morals. Why would an email provider be any different?