Ideas flow through financed institutions. The networks that control discourse over race and gender are human resource compliance divisions. HR specialists are networked and trained, and operate across most institutions in the country.
Today, multiple Democratic Senators (Menendez and Cortez-Masto) brought up a McKinsey study on how diversity and inclusion at a board level increases corporate profits. That's a racial justice frame. mckinsey.com/featured-insig…
One reason centralizers love wokeness is because it offers a handy moral language to extend HR compliance across a larger and larger group. People mock HR compliance like everyone thinks it's bad, but HR is an important force in society with many trained professionals.
There's a direct legal connection. Civil rights laws placed liability on firms, without circumscribing clear rules on how to obey. So executives turned to HR networks to operationalize the laws, and then judges and legislatures began relying on them too.
In other words, HR compliance is what a civil rights movement looks like when no one values labor itself.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. So something extraordinary happened today on the anti-monopoly front. And not where you'd expect. Not in Congress. Or at the Federal level. Or in Europe.
But in Arizona.
Some legislators stood up to Apple and Google. And they won. This is the story.
2. Google and Apple are monopolies who control what is on your phone. Together they have 99% of the smartphone market. And they both charge high prices to app makers for the right to sell through their app stores. Apple made $64B from this tollbooth. cnbc.com/2021/01/08/app…
3. It’s basically impossible to sell mobile apps without going through the Apple/Google app stores, so they charge high prices - 30% of the take. Credit cards charge 2-3% to a merchant for access to a payment network. That's ten times Visa/MC, and Visa/MC are really greedy!
Arizona legislature debating anti-monopoly bill to force Google and Apple to compete on app distribution. azleg.gov/videoplayer/?c…
Apple has Democrats attacking the app store anti-monopoly bill by attaching an amendment mandating all savings from the bill have to go to consumers. No, this doesn't make any sense. azleg.gov/videoplayer/?c…
Democrats @KelliButlerAZ is just talking about interfering with Apple's right to contract. This is just so insane to have the progressives be the bulwark for big tech monopoly power.
3. The Pentagon consolidated its 900 contracts with moving companies that move soldiers all over the world into one contract with American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier Group, a firm whose foreign parent was found guilty of price-fixing. mattstoller.substack.com/p/contract-bun…
House Antitrust hearing on how to break up big tech platforms is starting.
This hearing is the legislative follow-through on Congress's critical investigation into big tech. These hearings are where actual policy change occurs. @econliberties's @mh4oh will be testifying on the need for break-ups.
Now @davidcicilline is talking about Facebook as a key vector for the organizing of the riot at the Capitol. Zuckerberg said he would do nothing about it, and Cicilline says that's because of a lack of competition. He doesn't fear market repercussions.
Wow Democrat @CharleneforAZ read off talking points praising the security of the iPhone and app store. There's a serious problem with progressive legislators doing whatever big tech wants. azleg.gov/videoplayer/?c…
It's amazing to see progressives @CesarChavezAZ straight up going libertarian in Arizona. The legislature, he said, shouldn't get involved in disputes between private businesses. And let's not use the term monopoly.
"The proposal calls for platforms to pay into a trust fund, which would in turn pay for news organizations to establish robust fact-checking services."
Nightmare idea. Let's address no actual problems but create lots of new ones!
A lot of media reformers are ripping off the mask and asserting they just don't want private media outlets anymore. Their view is newsgathering should be financed and fact-checked by the government.
As @RrjohnR has written extensively, advertising has been a key mechanism to prevent the control of private media by the state since the early 1800s. Are people really that naive they imagine media that is nearly all state-funded will be a check on state power?