I don’t know about the unintended consequences, but when George Soros comes out in public he is always pushing an agenda. So perhaps the question should be, what are the intended consequences?
Does Soros want governments to regulate these companies for economic reasons, or is it a power grab for control of the flow of information?
These companies have painted a huge target on their back by amassing so much data. There are many powerful organizations that would like access to that data.
It's not about access to the data, but rather about controlling the flow of information. The rise of social media and Google represents a shift of power away from traditional media (which Soros and his allies have a relatively higher degree of influence over) and to .. well, something else (I'm going going to pretend it's "the people", and it's not "the russians", either).
It's never clear to me what people even mean by this - it seems like a fashionable phrase to throw around. So I second your question - what practically speaking would happen under this scenario? I'd prefer to hear the people advocating it be explicit about what they want and why.
If you live in a major city in the US or Europe, your utilities almost certainly "just work," and this narrative is pure ideological bullshit based in fantasy.
Have you ever lived anywhere where utilities are not state-regulated? Are you comparing them to that experience?
You don't have to--you can just compare something that should be a utility (Comcast) with something that is (your power company). Hey, look! Turns out those government regulations help.
FWIW, in my perfect imaginary world, Google Search would work as it had worked few years ago (back when it had less ads), while social networks like Facebook would be forced to interoperate through some shared protocols. But then again, my vision of the perfect Internet involves significantly reducing control the publishing parties have - that is, those parties should publish content and services, not dictate the way I should consume said content and services. I should be perfectly free to render any site any way I like, including not rendering it at all, but navigating through my own (or third party) software.
I think this strikes at the heart of my contempt for heavy handed approach to regulation.
I kinda want to take that back and say we shouldn’t be having this conversation at all. This narrative that everything needs to be regulated and the Internet is a something makes me more worried that we’ll be required to do things as much as we’ll be protected in doing other things.
E.g. a relationship between the government and Facebook in any fashion pushes us closer to allowing Facebook as some form of shared trust - perhaps making it an eligible Voting ID. We get to a point where it becomes more hassle than it’s worth, benefiting the Gov and FB, but not really benefiting the end user.
Maybe that’s the real Net-Neutrality: keeping a hands-off relationship between how I consume information and the regulation of such.
Yes, I feel like the regulatory movement is underway, and the narrative is beginning to brew. And, I think we’re having someone else’s conversation.
It'd allow you to basically build your own Facebook app, migrate meaningfully to another service and build other services that meaningfully integrate with Facebook... and effectively turn FB/Twitter into public utilies and enable real competition to Google to appear by allowing users to share key data such as which result they clicked on in response to which query.
I actually prefer they not be regulated as public utilities because at least this way you have some measure of opting out of having information collected about you.
(Yes, this does have consequences down to the individual developer level)
I thought US monopoly laws were more about dealing with unfair profiteering off customers?
Or do I not know that Google’s advertising rates are regulated by monopoly laws?
This finally seems to be starting to shift.
> What monopoly regulation would apply to a dominant market position delivering value at no cost to the user
Look at what is happening to Google in the EU.
I guess from Soros point of view the underlying issue is that the social media amplify outrage driving up lobbying costs.
"[Google and Facebook] claim that they are merely distributing information, but the fact that they are near monopoly distributors make them in to public utilities - and should subject them to more stringent regulations aimed at preserving competition, innovation and fair and open universal access."
George Soros always seems to be selling something, so hearing the billionaire cry foul gives me pause.
I don't disagree with the stated ambition – "preserved competition, innovation and fair and open universal access", but I'm hesitant to join the rallying cry for heavy handed regulation at this point. These always seem to come down on other companies that don't have the resources to manage the regulations and create an even more protectionist environment.
What are the unintended consequences of these regulations? We've all benefited from the work that Google and Facebook have open sourced (definitely pushed outside innovation forward), and many incredible businesses and entrepreneurs have found footing on the solid platforms of each.
I don't know. I imagine that if we view these companies on a longer time frame, we'll see that they end up folding in on themselves like every other company – just maybe a generation or two later.