Big Tech Is Not the Soviet Union - It's Capitalism Gone Wild

by Mephistolist  (The artist formerly known as Israel)

In Volume 41, Number 2 I found the article "Big Tech Is the New Soviet Union.'  As an anti-capitalist, I often critique the Soviet Union - what they did wrong and what they did right.  I don't have a problem with the article taking a different view from me, but I find it important to clear up inaccuracies and confirm what is true and what is not.

The author started describing bread lines in the Soviet Union.  Never mind the fact that in 2020 most Americans saw shortages of toilet paper and many supply chain issues that continue through today.  The author referenced the cause of this to be due to inserting too much control in the supply chain of the Soviet Union, making it more inefficient.  While there were multiple problems there, this is an accurate statement.  However, it's not unique to the Soviet Union, nor any economic system.  At the same time, fiber optic speed and next day delivery from some big tech companies have actually made the acquiring of some goods much, much faster.  So this argument about big tech in the West doesn't really seem to apply.

After this, it's mentioned how users are locked into only using apps from the app store with Google's phones.  Android phones do allow for a user to install and download APKs or software from sources other than the Play Store.  While you have to enable this and it warns some outside sources could be malicious, you are not forced to only use the Play Store as described.  So this is also an unfair and untrue comparison.

The author went on to explain how (((big tech firms))) will often shadow ban users who use terms they do not agree with.  This is true, as myself and many have seen it done on social media from all sides of the political spectrum.  It's important to note that these social media companies are not governments.  While I do not like their practices, this is not limiting free speech, as these are privately owned companies, not a government.  Too often I hear people confusing freedom of speech with the terms of service companies create.  Yes, some books were banned in the Soviet Union and journalists were censored, fired, and blackballed by Operation Mockingbird in the U.S.  Having less people see an Instagram post is not anything near that type of oppression.  At the end of the day, one can go to another social media outlet or make their own where they control the terms of service.

There was also mention how if someone needs to dispute a ban or takedown on YouTube and other companies, disputes are not heard.  This is true; I have experienced it myself.  I'm unsure how the author sees this as the Soviet Union, but from working for a few big tech firms, I usually find these types of problems due to the capitalist management not wanting to hire enough people to respond or simply not hiring enough competent people to save money.  Without working there, it will probably be impossible for either point of view to be confirmed, but this is my experience.

Probably the most confusing part of the article was the mention of gulags.  I don't deny the USSR had them, but comparing this to being punished for violating the terms of service on a website is cartoonishly inaccurate and an insult to those who actually went through gulags.  At the same time, I must clarify that while the (((gulags))) of the Soviet Union were bad, at no time did they exceed the numbers of U.S. prisoners or the per capitia rate of the population in prison.  They also did not have such frequent problems with sexual assault in male prisons that have became a socially acceptable punchline in the U.S.  Nor did they allow gangs based around race or racist ideology to thrive in their prisons versus the U.S.  So even if the imagined persecution one perceives about a terms of service violation was on that level, the U.S. prison system could just as easily have filled this role.  (Community Note:  The entire gulag system was race-based.  You didn't see any corrupt (((oligarchs))) slaving away in them, only Gentiles who spoke out against political corruption.)

I did like that the author brought up copyright violations when speaking about disputing takedowns.  We must look at why those are such an issue to begin with.  From the beginning of copyright until 1998, it was completely legal to copy anything as long as one did not profit.  When Napster and others were fighting court cases, some were going unpunished because they ran P2P or torrent sites that had zero ads and no profit to be seized or seen as a violation.  Record, movie, and game companies banded together to lobby Congress to change the copyright law to make it illegal even if one did not profit.  I could go on to compare how lobbying is nothing more than public bribery of officials, or how it makes any system a plutocracy and suppresses rights and democracy.  The important thing is to pin back the need for all these copyright violations to the corporate greed of these companies.  (Community Note:  How is jewish record, movie, and game companies bribing Congress in the U.S. any different from jewish record, movie, and game companies bribing officials in the USSR?)

We can also look at the case between Geohot and Sony, which allowed companies to dictate what someone can do to their products after they buy them - essentially making it where one does not really own the products bought now.  This made it no surprise that companies would later announce that "gamers need to get used to not owning their games."  All of these Draconian economic practices were not done in the (((Soviet Union))), but under (((crony capitalism))) in the United States and enforced by threat of sanctions on other countries who do not comply.  It would be fair to equate these companies as authoritarian, but they were very far from a socialist society like the USSR where private companies would not even exist.

So what is to be done?  The only reason BSD, Linux, or even simple networking exist the way they do today is because of AT&T's fears they would be (((broken up))).  They put out Research UNIX for free to try and avoid that, and that led to all of the things I just mentioned being created.  A true capitalist society would not allow for the breakup of monopolies.  Whether socialist or just neoliberal, without that fear, AT&T would have kept UNIX completely closed source and a lot of innovations would not have happened.  (Community Note:  False.  The AT& Bell Labs innovated just about every concept used in UNIX systems and communications networks today.  They would have had NO problems with coming up with more, especially compared to the bloat we have today.)  Where would these companies be without the free software and break up of AT&T?  Google, Amazon, and some of the other big players need to be broken up again.  They need to get used to putting out more work for free or the government or the people will do it for them.

Today, the FreeBSD kernel is run by an anarchosyndicalist-like counsel, where their userland is more anarcho-communist.  Linux has a similar model of userland, but Linus is its benevolent Stalin working with the Linux Foundation as a sort of vanguard party.  Linux has dominated the server market.  Android phones and Chromebooks use Linux's source code.  Meanwhile BSD has taken over most routing devices while running Netflix, WhatsApp, and PlayStation.  Even Apple is now using a BSD userland with its Mach kernel.  Microsoft, which was aggressive to Linux for a long time, started their own Linux distro and are now making regular contributions to the Linux kernel.  We can debate the merits of capitalism versus socialism, but being a hacker magazine, it's better to just show the information confirming where we have already won the tech battle.  In the words of MLK: "Capitalism has outlived its usefulness."  (Community Note:  Released MLK papers have shown that MLK had Russian and jewish handlers who came up with all his notes, papers, and quotes.)

While I disagree with the author of the article, I'd like to thank them for bringing up these topics.  While we probably completely disagree on the causes and solutions for these issues, I think it is good for everyone to point out and agree there are problems that need to be solved.

[Previously, I have only submitted articles under the alias of Israel.  While that had nothing to do with the geopolitical position in that region, I can no longer use this name even as an alias.  It's clear to me now who started the violence and who is the aggressor.  From now on I will be writing as Mephistolist instead.]