“Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, concerned about fake news prevalent on social media sites, believes Congress should weigh in with antitrust legislation targeting Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple,” reports the Washington Examiner. Say what? Just what do Microsoft and Apple have to do with so-called fake news? How are any of these companies monopolies? Is Ralph Nader getting senile or was he misquoted?
YouTube has a video of part of his comments that he gave at an event commemorating the passage of the Freedom of Information Act. It doesn’t show the whole event, but it appears that one of the other speakers or someone in the audience said something positive about the role of social media in mobilizing grassroots activism.
Early in the video, Nader argues that all social changes in our society have taken place with less than 1 percent of adults becoming activists. In other words, he says, people who want social change don’t have to reach 51 percent of the voters, just a fraction of a percent of people who are the “influentials.” While I could argue with his point in several ways, it isn’t really important here.
The important part comes at 2 minutes and 40 seconds into the video, when he goes off on a rant against Facebook, Microsoft, and Google. This rant isn’t really relevant to what he was saying and he could have left it out without any problem.
Facebook, Microsoft, and Google are “trapped by their exudations of their own flamingly fast technological developments,” he said. “They don’t have a clue when they unleash things what the consequences are. And they haven’t had from day 1. They don’t have a clue. They just know they’re putting the products out and they can show it’s exciting. And you know the rest of its going to take care of itself. I really wouldn’t rely on them.
Medical tests, such as nerve biopsy, nerve conduction velocity tests, lab tests cialis professional generic valsonindia.com (e.g., upper gastrointestinal (GI) and small bowel series), neurological exams, electromyography, etc., are conducted to ensure the best results. But, men can now cialis no prescription buy Kamagra from any part of the country with help of registered pharmacies. References Selye H (1996-2010). “The Nature of http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Quarterly-Financial-Results-march-2017.pdf cheapest cialis Stress.” International Center for Nutritional Research, Inc. Following are the major benefits to buy Kamagra at the cheapest cialis 5mg no prescription prices.
“I think we need a grassroots movement of the serious sub-society that can take command of this. Because eventually it’s going to have to end up in Congress, first amendment or not, it’s going to have to end up in Congress. You have four major monopolies now redefined under our antitrust laws we hope, we have google, Facebook, Microsoft, and what’s the other one? Apple. Basically they have a new kind of monopoly. . . . This is going to go into the antitrust area.”
It’s hard to know where to begin in responding to this. These companies are big, but none are monopolies. None of them have created fake-news sites (if that was even an issue; Nader didn’t mentioned it in the 4-minute video). Facebook and, to a lesser degree, Google are involved in social media, but Microsoft and Apple really aren’t (except that they provide some of the hardware people might use for social media).
Reading between the lines, it sounds like he is reacting to the fact that some people who he doesn’t agree with have successfully used social media to promote their causes. Thus, he doesn’t like social media, blaming the medium rather than the message, and wants Congress to somehow fix the problem–as if people couldn’t use MySpace, LinkedIn, or other kinds of social media to spread their message if Facebook and Google were somehow broken up.
The Antiplanner agrees that some technologies tend to centralize control of society, while other technologies decentralize it. The former might include mass transit, the telegraph, and electric power distributed from central generating plants. The latter might include the automobile, personal computers, and the internet.
The scary thing is that Nader seems to be favoring central control and opposing decentralizing technologies. He wants to go back to the days when a handful of people who agreed with him could “take command” of society. Of course, those days never existed, and it is even more disturbing if he thinks they did.
The Antiplanner was once inspired by Ralph Nader enough that many of my friends and I called him “Uncle Ralph.” But rants like this are not very inspiring.
Nader’s statement is full of so many generalities and unsupported assertions. Yes, it is a rant, and not a particularly good one. I’ve read better rants written by high school students.
Maybe Nader is exhibiting early signs of dementia.
In Nader I see the ability to cause change. He sees the government as the best agent to work with. I see it differently, but “uncle Ralph” still deserves credit for having the proper spirit: life can and should improve.
The government going after tech company “monopolies” has been unnecessary and incompetent.
The government had a decade long suit against IBM saying it monopolized computers. When the suit ended Microsoft and Apple PC’s had basically eliminated IBM from consumer technologies.(due to no action by the government)
The government then went after Microsoft for many years (with the cheering of the MSM and assorted politicos). When the suit ended Microsoft was left behind by the internet revolution led by Netscape. (again, due to no action by the government)
As Bill Gates kept testifying throughout the litigation, technology is constantly changing and each company has to change constantly or lose it place in the marketplace.
The only way there will be a monopoly with technology is if the government seizes control. With today’s technologies, that would be the end of our freedoms–and probably the end of any technological advances.
”
Basically they have a new kind of monopoly.
” ~ Ralph Nader
More intellectual diarrhea from Mr. Nader. He’s made a career out of this only because people desperately cling to positive things he does, ignoring his lack of thought and authoritarian tendencies.
The internet has done more to limit monopoly power than could any government intervention. I can now buy music, movies, and a dizzying array of mustards at a fraction of their former price from a panoply of on-line outlets, without ever leaving the comfort of my home.
But, I want to address Ralph’s claim that social change requires reaching only his so-called influentials. I think Ralph overstates the role of activists and, by doing so, understates his own advocacy successes. Nader became a household name because his message reached well beyond influentials, into household living rooms full of real people who cared about the things he promoted. Things like clean drinking water. And cars that didn’t gratuitously decapitate loved ones. Things like open government. And protecting whistleblowers to better ensure that government is not captured by influentials.
I hope that Nader is not forgetting his roots as activism has become a respected profession (viz a former president and “community activist”). When activists think they only have to influence the influentials they forget how to talk to real people.
“cars that didn’t gratuitously decapitate loved ones.”
Riiiight. Because that was ever a significant thing. And srsly? “Gratuitously”? haha
Perhaps Frank is too young to remember how dangerous automobiles used to be.
“Early” signs of dementia???? Find one of the “Nader’s Raiders” and buy them a beer — they will tell you how crazy and self-aggrandizing Ralph Nader really is.
“Perhaps Frank is too young to remember how dangerous automobiles used to be.”
I don’t see any evidence of cars “gratuitously” decapitating loved ones. Ah, loaded language. It’s so useful in argumentation.