Assignment 3: Break Up the Tech Giants

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay4bKauK-UU

Huge multinational tech companies such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft have
attained such a dominant status in online search, advertising, sales and social networking that some have
started to question whether it is time to break up these companies. Some argue that the dominance of
these companies leads to unhealthy market monopolies, stifles competition and creativity, and has
unwelcome political consequences. You will see above the link to a debate on this issue involving the
following speakers:

Big tech companies should be broken up

Rana Foroohar, Global Business Columnist at the FT

Luke Johnson, Entrepreneur and former chairman of Channel 4

Big tech companies shouldn’t be broken up

Pinar Akman, Competition law expert and Professor of Law at the University of Leeds

Elizabeth Linder, Founder and former head of Facebook’s Politics and Government division (EMEA
region)

Debate moderator

Nik Gowing, BBC journalist

Watch the debate and complete the following tasks.

TASK 1 Refuting Arguments

a) The speakers invoke multiple arguments to support their proposition. Pick3 arguments, from different
speakers, and report them using this form:

- RF / LJ believe that large tech firms can be split due to t his is crucial for everyone – not only for the
sake of healthy markets but for everyone's political well-being. Their strength not only in their volume,
but also in the 21st century’s the most precious assets, information, digital economy oil, which are
openly extracted from our users by the tech firms. The tech firms are now a major challenge to our basic
freedoms with too much information and centralizing control in the hands of a few West coast
corporations. This is the statement made by FT's worldwide market columnist Rana Foroohar and by
Channel 4 entrepreneurs and former President Luke Johnson during this significant debate in the
Intelligence Squared.
 PA/EL Big tech firms don't think it can be interrupted because of. . Yet some claim that it is all too
convenient for technology pioneers to become a scapegoat for digital revolution's inevitable uprisings.
Not the software giants but us the consumers are the true beneficiaries of this movement. Who can
picture living with Amazon, Apple, Internet, Facebook and Microsoft services now? This is the case in our
debate made by former Facebook chief Elizabeth Linder and competition law specialist Pinar Akman, the
European Political and Government division.

b) Use one or more of the strategiesdiscussed in class (counter-example, reductio ad absurdum, parallel
reasoning) to refute each of these arguments.

The problems of "break them up" are accurate; it is not solution to break them up. First of all, anti-trust
enforcement is well beyond its successes Romanized and well in its accomplishments excess. The
breakup of the monopoly AT&T in 1984 into eight firms contributed to competitiveness, price cuts and
service changes. But gradually the market was revived and authorities satisfied when landlines give way
to the cellular infrastructure. Today, telecom and Verizon are dominated by a reconstituted AT&T, with
Sprint a far-flung third player. The judge mandated Standard Oil breaking up in 1911 signaled the end of
the most critical monopoly action yet, yet hundreds of splinter groups were gradually reassembled as
huge, influential oil enterprises. This division has rendered the affluent Rockefeller Family richer, as their
investments in one business have become shares in many—both of which have easily doubled,
accompanied by an upward trend. (ExxonMobil and Chevron are two most famous).

TASK 2 Spotting Fallacies

Give a list of5 fallacies committed either by the speakers, the audience members or the debate
moderator. Give a quotation or summary of what is said, identify what fallacy you think is being
committed and give a justification for why you think they are committing this fallacy.

1. It is use the other services is extremely easy and to introduce more schools for students.
The issue is that people are uneducated. This is also what happens when in this era the
older generation teaches the younger. He's obviously not developed a taste of software; I
don't even understand why they let that guy talk.
2. The Linder statement regarding the network impact pledge then overbalanced Foroohar's
previous wrongdoing. As a reactionary, Johnson hit me with fear and hypocrisy.
3. In both sides there has been just a weak discussion full of heated calls, not a strong case.
Clearly, the winners are the panelists (particularly if they are paid), and the public is the
losing group.
4. About everything the Russian girl is wrong, effective action does not invest billions in
advertisement promotions to say sorry, immediate action reflects absolute splitting of
funds and compensation to the families of their evident and blatant crimes.
5. Alternative technologies like DTube (Decentralized YouTube), DuckDuckGo etc. have
not been addressed. There is no debate. I'm also not pleased with the pro-team response
"How to break up the tech companies" Why will a search engine be broken?
TASK 3 Personal Reactions

What is your opinion on the issue under debate? Refer to your background knowledge AND/OR material
discussed in your classes on the ethics of Information Technology (around 200 words). Make sure you
justify your opinion by formulating an argument with identifiable premises (do NOT simply write I
disagree/agree because I feel that . . .).

This is why this debate was all across my opinion, the motion itself is confusing. The technique is
persuasive, although few will agree to divide the corporations if the term 'massive' applies to the
products and ideas of those businesses (e.g., giant networks, resources of great scope, and so
forth). However the ethical arguments for breaking them up are more convincing and very few
would not consent whether the term "giant" applies to the financial activities of those firms, (that
is, giant effect by the pouring of money into governments, lobbies for regulations to encourage
and eradicate competition). This was not a proper argument but a bar chat. The simple
explanation these corporations have been so massive in my mind is that we favor their offerings
over others. For starters, Amazon served the customer with cheap rates – a symbol of anti-
competence. And the domination of today's technological firms is far from certain when it comes
to rivalry. It is simpler than ever for competing start-ups to introduce new online companies with
digital resources and inexpensive market entry. Technology firms are especially susceptible to
fortune shifts. The tech firms face fierce rivalry from each other, although they are not untouched
monopolies. Yes, the rules should be reasonable. Yet the advantages they have introduced to the
broader community must be defended.

Some Useful Questions

While you are doing task 2, you might want to ask yourself some of the following questions to focus your
thoughts. (You do NOT need to answer these as part of the assignment. They are just here to help you.)

- Are the points which the audience members raise always relevant to the issue?
- Do the audience critiques present an accurate representation of the argument which the
debaters are proposing?
- One audience member questions where LJ sells his books. What is the purpose of this question?
- How directly and successfully does RF respond to certain audience questions?
- RF raises lots of fear related to recent political developments: how strong is the connection
between these developments and the rise of big tech companies?
- Do any of the speakers give an imbalanced argument? What fallacy might they be committing by
doing so?
- What question does the debate moderator continually ask LJ? Is he justified in doing this?
- EL make many claims about the potential of the platforms maintained by tech giants: does this
strategy successfully respond to the criticisms of the opposing team?
- What is the nature of the decision or dilemma which the debater(s) are presenting the audience?
- RF often expresses surprise, shock or disbelief at the statements of other debaters. Are these
emotions appropriate? Is she successful in justifyingwhy she shows these reactions?
- LJ and RF appeal to outside voices to reinforce their argument. What do these outside appeals
contributeto their argument?
- What is the attitude of EL towards the opposing debating team?
- EL believes she has a privileged perspective. Is she right in believing this?
- What types of emotion does LJ seek to trigger in the audience?
- What role does speculation play in the discussion?