U.S. presidential candidates’ positions on breaking up Big Tech

In the preamble to the U.S. 2020 presidential election, many Democratic White House contenders have argued in favor of either breaking up or tightening regulation of companies such as Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google. Here’s a look at the U.S. presidential candidates’ positions on breaking up Big Tech.

Elizabeth Culliford for Reuters:

Presidential candidates' positions on breaking up Big Tech: President Trump tours Apple Mac Pro facility with CEO Tim Cook in Austin, Texas on Wednesday, November 21, 2019
President Trump tours Apple Mac Pro facility with CEO Tim Cook in Austin, Texas on Wednesday, November 21, 2019
President Trump: Trump, whose digital campaign helped propel him to the White House in 2016, has stopped short of calling for tech giants to be broken up, but said “obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly,” when asked about major tech companies in the past.

Joe Biden: Biden, who was vice president in the Silicon Valley-friendly Obama administration, has said that splitting up companies such as Facebook was “something we should take a really hard look at” but that it was “premature” to make a final judgment.

Bernie Sanders: Sanders, who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the breakup of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon.

Elizabeth Warren: She has called for legislation to restrict large tech platforms – which she would designate as “platform utilities” -from owning and participating in a marketplace at the same time. Under this law, Apple would not be allowed to both run the App Store and sell its own apps on it, for example.

MacDailyNews Take: More candidates’ positions are laid out in the full article.

It’ll be very interesting to see the breakdown of political donations out of Silicon Valley this cycle given the U.S. presidential candidates’ positions on breaking up Big Tech.

SEE ALSO:
Silicon Valley donated 60 times more to Clinton than to Trump – November 7, 2016
99% of Silicon Valley’s political dollars are going to Hillary Clinton – October 25, 2016
Apple and Silicon Valley employees love Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump? Not so much – May 6, 2016
Apple among top employers of Bernie Sanders donors – April 20, 2016
Apple employees donate $15 to Obama for every $1 to Romney – July 27, 2012
Apple, other tech firm employees’ contributions favor Democrats over Republicans, Obama over Clinton – April 14, 2008

13 Comments

      1. Back in year 2000, AAPL was about $3-5 a share. Pretty much anyone could have invested.

        Don’t blame others for having better foresight. Those who did risk their own money to invest owe nothing to those who didn’t.

        1. The designers on the right side in my office were stuck on buying gold and owning PC’s, (some even took a turn at day trading until the fall of 2008) most saw no value in Apple 15 years ago until it was to late and they are bitter….

    1. Using “Demonrats” completely destroys your credibility. You want people to consider what you’re saying, or are you just talking to yourself and your pals? A parallel; using repuglican, or….

      Btw, I think your statement could use a bit of refinement. Tom Steyer is kind of rich and he didn’t become rich by saving his dimes (very successful “big” businessman). He’s just one many examples of successful, big business people on the left. They do seem to like to define what’s too much money to have, though. Obama’s statement is an example:

      “I Do Think At A Certain Point You’ve Made Enough Money.” Now that Obama is quite rich, I’d love to ask him what level is now “enough.” I bet it’s changed, now that he’s rolling in it.

      AOC seems to see the very rich as cultural problems and she and Bernie have similar philosophies.
      AOC sees billionaires as “takers” from society and Bernie is bothered by, “the grotesque level of wealth inequality” but now that he has a couple of million in the bank, he’s not yet in the realm of “grotesque”. Reconcile that for me, please.

      There is a broadening chasm between haves/have nots, but seeing the wealthy as a foe and forcefully abstracting their wealth to spread to those having less isn’t the solution. It’s a real problem, still waiting for a good solution.

      1. Unfortunately for Americans, the Demonrat moniker is accurate. If Demonrats don’t want to be called Demonrats, they should stop acting like Demonrats.

        If we are known to Demonrats as repuglican, that means we are doing our job. I would hate for Demonrats to be happy with our efforts, which would mean that we were Demonrats too.

          1. The stupidity of that attitude is sickening. The best way for the country to prosper is for the left coast to fall into the ocean at the next earthquake.

            Proof of your stupidity is your support for hilderbest and the Obamanation the rest of the treasonist idiots.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.