# data[].attributes.body
The opposition lacks solution over the problem mentioned from the motion, regarding companies failing ethical meanings,  as not protecting their employers, data privacy concern created by the big tech monopolies, and crutial economic effect monopoly disrupt in the free market

the opposition lacks examples that can back their argument  nor to support their claims over how monopoly are worth the risk cuz seen from this debate it is in no way worth it

here the opponent haven't in any way tackle our argumentative examples while we did

you honor  we believed the solution we proposed are much more applicable and worth to tackle the complications mentioned in this debate

i may mention our solution again

# data[].attributes.body
The opponent still havent rebattled our arguments reagarding employment abuse, dispute by monopolies, and pretty much the opposition havent comment anything regarding our examples over big tech companies accquisitioning future threat, like meta buying WA, google acquiring waze

# data[].attributes.body
just because it's unfortunate for people to not being able to play PC games in mobile doesn't mean you can steal a game's concept and layout. how is that in anyways fair?

# data[].attributes.body
innovation? you literally have a game that copies another company and they dont get any consequence from it cuz they're a monopoly. unfair

# data[].attributes.body
monopoly is defined as a majority power
meta owning almost 80% of the social media app is still considered and defined as a monopoly, yeah

# data[].attributes.body
it is their fault to be a monopoly, who decide the acquisitions? who decide the mergers? who decide the predatory buying of competitions?

# data[].attributes.body
it is never enough, having only 5 companies holding something as influential as the internet? it's harmful for us because the internet is basically our 2nd world. to have it controlled by rich conglomerates would be damaging to our democracy and product value plus the workplace field

# data[].attributes.body
it is bad
have you seen the examples (include trump, employe abuse by amazon, hacks the 2018 incident on facebook now meta. and so on)

# data[].attributes.body
Big tech companies are large conglomerates that specialise in the technological world where they provide services through the internet. These tech companies also hold large sway over their country's economy and have massive influence as a whole. The main players inside the big tech as of right now are Amazon, Apple, Meta, Google and Microsoft.

The tech giants are the dominant players in their respective areas of technology, namely:e-commerce, online advertising, consumer electronics, cloud computing, computer software, media streaming, artificial intelligence, smart home, self-driving cars, and social networking. They have been among the most valuable public companies globally, each having had a maximummarket capitalization ranging from around $1 trillion to above $3 trillion.They are additionally considered to be among the most prestigious and selective employers in the world, especially Google.

Big Tech companies typically offer services to millions of users, and thus can hold sway on user behavior as well as control of user data

# data[].attributes.body
Monopolization also means that the people who control corporations can pay workers less, knowing workers have fewer places to sell their labor. “Monopoly, like most forms of concentrated power, is often brought to bear against the least advantaged in an unequal society.”

If a market is entirely or largely controlled by one company then the wealth extracted from that market would only go to one benefactor and leaving the rest of the people trying to get into the market fail

It's unequal and predatory

We also want to create a healthy environment for entrepreneurs to succeed.

If for example at the times of Google's first years of being a company yahoo was as big as google is today, would google prosper? No.

# data[].attributes.body
- Basically in 2019 Spotify filed a complaint alleging that Apple enforces App Store rules that "purposely limit choice and stifle innovation at the expense of the user experience," accusing the company of "acting as both a player and referee to deliberately disadvantage other app developers."

- Epic games since 2020 had been in dispute with apple over its monopoly act regarding 30% cut that had been disrupting the market regarding software market in IOS operating system

# data[].attributes.body
Monopolies are inefficient compared to perfectly competitive markets because it charges a higher price and produces less output. The term for inefficiency in economics is deadweight loss. Since the monopolist charges a price greater than its marginal cost, there is no allocative efficiency.

# data[].attributes.body
Rebuttal:
- disruption by the government isn't always bad, rather than letting these companies be predatory we would rather have the government interfere for the consumer and the general populace
- non monopoly companies can also create innovations but unfortunately they are acquisitioned early on such as YouTube twitch and more, our solution would solve this
- going back to the old design is just a lazy term for "oh crap why not just redo our old assignment" it's a silly excuse and people buy into it cuz they have no other choice in the market
- without competition there would only be one benefactors and that would only cause more wealth inequality, the rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer. It's better to have the capital from a market be distributed more equally rather than all being own by one person
- yeah monopoly causes a certain company to be large and huge brand but at what cost? Giving 1 company more privilege through monopoly at the cost of 100 companies failing? Doesn't seem fair and this is truly disruptive to the free market
- data regulation? And other safety and so on won't fix the problems of monopolies. How would it fix the lack of competition? Fix the wealth inequality? Fix basically all of the problems in monopoly. Without competition there's no check and balance and as can be seen through the lobbying the big tech have done there's no assurance that the government would even have the balls to enact this data regulation.

Rebuttal 2:
- free trade is a platform of commerce with competition and so on would be better. The risk of government intervention in the grand calculus of capitalism is better than to let it die from capitalistic greed
- yeah they're on the verge to become the most successful company you know why? Because they're too big to fail. You can say the same thing about the VOC for example, they get rich they get successful but in the cost of a lot of employees slaved and other companies curbstomped
- yeah sure it's technology but for non monopolies they get crucified and fail but for too big to fail companies they get off easily and have no risk
- it's not funding if you're acquisitioning. If you want to fund the company it's better to do investment from the market rather than completely taking the company over. Acquisitions aren't normal when they are done to expand your business and have greater influence in the market
- thanks for the advertismenet for google and apple but we can see that other non monopolies can also innovate such as opera gx with their better UI and so on but are they a giant or successful? Just a tiny bit compared to google. With having google tackled many more would fill their shoes more equally
- I know that successful companies need to be rewarded such as more profit but to the point they have more power than even the US president? That's too far. Don't lie to yourself getting too far into hungry ambitions is bad
- we know you sacrificed but for other companies to even have the chance to be like your company we need to protect them through anti monopoly policies and regulations. How would you benefit the tiny companies and up and coming enterprises? Let them be bought and enslaved like whatsapp? Tell us!!
- yeah the economy effect us all and if it is left unregulated you can see a world like bladerunner 2042 starred by Ryan gosling

Rebuttal 3:
- "I want to be successful I have the will" yeah sure buddy now do your worksheet for daddy bezos
- y'all still haven't explained how to solve the problems of monopolies such as employee rights, acquisition predatory acts, the fact that you're preventing the rise of entrepreneurs like what apple and amazon once were. They haven't even interacted with our main problem of companies being more powerful than the government
- you've ever got gay thoughts lmao?
- before monopolies innovation still exist. How did penicillin came to being? Cars? So on? No need big tech monopoly to do this shit

# data[].attributes.body
they are and already on the verge of success, not because they are a monopoly but because they want to be succesfull and innovate more, and as you said if it flop, people can just move to other competitor

Monopoly exist as the reason of evolution, resources in one hand to create the big weapon for humanity, lets put it like this would you rather have one dwayne rock johnson orrrrr 5 6 year olds in a fight

monopoly prooved to create more evolution and innovation with technology rather than ur hypothetical option, thus we still offer the chance for the opposition, leave us help humanity evolve and give government its full of resource to develop better platform for citizens too

thus concluding our solution again
we propose for the government to have its full resource on their own, and if the government really want to regulate the economy, they should better regulate parts of the parasitic economy things that are being the problem for the users

# data[].attributes.body
Acquisitions is there to fund the startup, companies exist to acquisition a company so they can share their resource together creating a better future for the innovation to be developed perfectly, everyone can presume any of their negative thoughts to big companies, but we really need to see the bigger picture here, a better evolution for technology, a more developed innovation through the cycle of economy

# data[].attributes.body
A government disturbing the economy arent a free trade either
the point of free trade economy is a platform for commercing without any disturbance by the government especially the corrupt one

Recruiting professionals isn't wrong, look everywhere around you, because of them and because of google you now have an evolving technology such as artificial technology, machine learning, sentient technology, and many more

iPhone?????????, don't look at phones only from their designs,

no innovation?? look at apple silicon, apple chips, their software

but now that u mention apple let's discuss about it
the opponent here is being a fanatic regarding iPhone, lets's throw the android vs iPhone war away cuz were talking about a real problem here, that debate is just filled with people overpraising their own products without hearing anyone

# data[].attributes.body
Impractical Market Fragmentation,

as said big companies are

What greater good?
If we keep being hypothetical conclusions
what if we take meta down and a new monopoly rises with a much worse state of the company, what if we take down one snake and a bigger snake comes

If corruption is easily handled how are there still cases of gov actors accepting bride for company investment maybe for a land etc

Bezos that Bezos this, why can't we see the bigger picture, lets look at wholefood a dying company with a bright future without amazon giving them a helping hand there would not be affordable online service for vegetables that creates ease of access for people

yes were not denying the data breach, its a big problem

hackers

# data[].attributes.body
again, were not denying data breaches, malware attack, cyber attack, and all sort of cyber criminality

but i dont see any point from opposition making from this regarding the motion

again we need to clarify monopoly is not the reason behind cyber criminality, without monopoly it would still exist, yk whats ironic?

the opposition mentioning how a big company cant protect data well especially the small companies,

we cant also deny the fact that most small companies get targeted mostly rather than big one because they are easier breach than meta, apple, how often do you see apple getting a data breach rather to seeing how often do you see startup getting hacked, pretty much everyday

my point is, this argument still dont justify the regulation needed to destroy the economy, monopoly or not there will still be cyber criminality, in fact even small companies are the one behind of this cybercriminality, because they are small and dont held much responsibility they just scam people around

# data[].attributes.headline
Development and innovation would still rise (rebattle)

# data[].attributes.subject
Development and innovation would still rise (rebattle)

# data[].attributes.body
if it weren't for the monopoly of disney in marvel and the movie industry we won't have the hit box office movie Endgame, or Spiderman no way home. how is that? disney acquired companies like fox where they can use their character and combine them in their movie. more resources would in turn have more innovation. having a centralized effort in an industry would ensure that the industry can advance with the backing of a large company, and we all know a company would not let themselves fail for their reputation as the best of the best in an industry

# data[].attributes.body
A business with a monopoly allows for an increased output of goods or services. This means prices can be lowered internally because there are more goods that are being offered or produced. With lower internal costs, the consumer can save money when those changes are reflected in the final retail price of what is being offered.

# data[].attributes.headline
It requires good products or services to develop the foundation of a monopoly.

# data[].attributes.subject
It requires good products or services to develop the foundation of a monopoly.

# data[].attributes.body
A business simply cannot create an item and then declare it is a monopoly. Consumers drive monopolies because of what they demand. People use Google more than Bing or other search engines because they prefer it. The iPhone is a preferred smartphone because of its construction, features, and innovation. This means the market gets high quality goods in a monopoly because that’s the only way to keep a monopoly.

as the green goblin said
"Oh, you can't do this to me. I started this company. You know how much I sacrificed!"

# data[].attributes.body
Here's one reason why breaking up firms won't be the solution
it may seem easy and logical to break up big tech but the consequences only create more ambiguity

if the government for example breaks up the social media giant into smaller ones, it would only produce an illusion of choice, users want control and easy accessibility over their communication, so what they would do is, forget the other social media and mainly use the other one, thus repeating the same cycle over and over again

# data[].attributes.body
rather than aggressively destroying tech companies because they are successful. the government should focus its effort on protecting the populace's data through regulation and so on.

By making regulations that cater to destroying free-market images like data privacy, digital trafficking, malware safety, etc, it won't harm the free market economy instead it would fix the parasites of our platform for the evolution

# data[].attributes.headline
Open Market Companies create better integration for technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Open Market Companies create better integration for technology

# data[].attributes.body
Ease of accessibility has always been the main thing for a technology to be better implemented

# data[].attributes.body
Preventing acquisitions, mergers, & breaking up firms, would effect the worlds economy 180 degrees, breaking the stock market, disturbing investment of billons that people are dependent on

Acquisitions, mergers, big firms, are normal cycle of economy, just like bees and hives collecting nectar and helping the nature's cycle

# data[].attributes.body
Government restriction such as anti monopoly would prevent or even disturb free trade heavily, havent we learn that no economy would rise without the diverse free market, its no secret that human evolution rely their innovation and creativity through commercing and financial distribution, the rise of technology spread with the help of free trade, freedom of economy and commercing

# data[].attributes.body
big tech companies such as Meta or Twitter got to the breaking bad point of even banning the 45th President of the US Donald J Trump. the head of the executive branch got banned and hence his free speech curtailed

this is bad for a democracy

# data[].attributes.body
before whatsapp was acquisitioned by Meta they were the forefront of data privacy but because of the practices of monopoly by the big tech meta company they are acquisitioned and ultimately ended privacy protection in WA. by preventing these kinds of acquisitions then right now WA could still be a safe communication app but it is not

# data[].attributes.body
a good free market is a free market with competition all around that would automatically balance the playing fields, with monopolies there can be no competition. fledgling tiny companies that pose a threat to the monopoly are acquisitioned early on and diminishing the chance of a counter balance

# data[].attributes.body
like in amazon and the sweatshops of china for apple

Amazon worker getting abused by work hours
Amazon workers for ex; not getting payed enough
Apple buying their resources from a child labor factories in china

not to mention tesla with its lithium child labor factory in africa

# data[].attributes.headline
the iPhone barely have any sorts of innovation to their products

# data[].attributes.subject
the iPhone barely have any sorts of innovation to their products

# data[].attributes.body
they would just strap on a flashy acsessory and call it a new product like Iphone 15 or something. the fact that you're a monopoly would just discourage you from giving any effort at improving your product

were not even making this up, from iPhone 11, 12, and 13 its been proven when the devices were benchmarked, all conclude the same result of power, the way apple market their bionic chips seems a bit more to be a false advertisement saying they are getting better each year but for a big tech company who hold a monopoly-like power, who could say no to them right? we just take whatever we were given cuz that's how monopoly works

# data[].attributes.headline
the advantages of breaking up big techs/firms

# data[].attributes.subject
the advantages of breaking up big techs/firms

# data[].attributes.body
-more opportunitues for small businesses
google answers 92% of the worlds search queries, and amazon sells nearly EVERYTHING a consumer may seek. leaving small business owners with little to no market space.
one way to ensure fair trade across industries is to bar big tech companies from entering adjacent markets. this will prevent big tech from getting bigger

-reduce data privacy concern
CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg testified and publicly apologized for a massive data breach in 2018, users worldwide questioned the platform’s ability to keep their information safe. Many believe Big Tech is increasingly seeking to monitor and dictate what consumers see and buy online. Targeted ads from Google have summoned similar reactions.

Once again, healthy competition can help end users’ privacy dilemmas. The more players looking to offer secure platforms, the greater the pressure on Big Tech to increase users’ data privacy.

-reduce national security concern
For months, Russian hackers gained visibility into staff emails sent via Microsoft Office 365 at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) after breaking into the NTIA’s office software. The incident highlights how Big Tech can open a doorway into the government’s sensitive processes, military, and intelligence operations.

Regulating Big Teach’s outreach can minimize the scope and severity of cyber attacks on national security systems.

# data[].attributes.body
ex of cost push inflation, OPEC controls the majority of the worlds oil reserves, and in 1973 it restricted production causing prices to skyrocket ab roughly 400%

# data[].attributes.body
the constant supplies that is too expensive to provide in a compatitive market, not just that most of the products are low quality-products, price fixing, cost push inflation

# data[].attributes.headline
monopolies can gain political power to protect their vested intrest

# data[].attributes.subject
monopolies can gain political power to protect their vested intrest

# data[].attributes.body
monopply will always trying to fix its hihest possible price which it can obtain from the costimer, so as to earn minimum profit. our solution is for the state can control the monopoly
by fixing the profits and the prices, and to ensure that the industry does not eran undue profit.

or to simply breaking up monopoly for a company who rule more than 40% of the market,

prohibiting mergers/acquisitions that accourt to 40% of the market share.

By ensuring interoperability and data portability across rival products and services, it is indeed possible to restore balance in trade.

free market capitalism is indeed a wonder to the world but if we let it go unpunished or unregulated then we'd have the same system that we once had under dutch colonial rule

# data[].attributes.body
Big tech companies especially those on hold of monopoly power are becoming a threat as they control so much data over its users

We are getting so much closer to the fantasy of a dysopian where those who hold the most information controls the world, and for no one to regulate them, were basically ignoring a problem where these companies would taken our freedom without us even realizing it

giving our freedom for such ignorance would be critical to our society's future

Right now we have google, controlling data over our location, digital activity, secrectly designing avatar with our digital physchology

need i remind u that these things are crucial to be private for our lives sake

# data[].attributes.body
When only one company controls an entire industry—or even a sizeable percentage of that industry—the company is said to have a monopoly. Traditionally, monopolies benefit the companies that have them, as they can raise prices and reduce services without consequence

# data[].attributes.headline
corrupt goverment actor can ruin puplic economy

# data[].attributes.subject
corrupt goverment actor can ruin puplic economy

# data[].attributes.headline
Reducing consumer surplus and economic welfare

# data[].attributes.subject
Reducing consumer surplus and economic welfare

# data[].attributes.headline
Charging a higher price than in a more competitive market

# data[].attributes.subject
Charging a higher price than in a more competitive market

# data[].attributes.headline
more opportunities for small companies in diverse economy

# data[].attributes.subject
more opportunities for small companies in diverse economy

# data[].attributes.headline
less competitive market perform less innovations

# data[].attributes.subject
less competitive market perform less innovations

# data[].attributes.body
- 100+ monopolies such as in the filming industry with netflix hulu disney plus amazon prime and so on is ultimately damaging for the average consumer, times when netflix was the only company innovating in the streaming sector the prices were lower for higher amounts of content
-Because government especially our government is famous for being incompetent. Joko candra anyone??. Notorious for its corruption would you want your life needs be managed by these rats in government?
we could not trust our government to do this kinds of anti monopoly act, they are easily bribed and controlled by outsider forces
for example, the sponsor of a party that has a majority in parliament can ask them to disband and break up their opposing company. it's dangerous to entrust trust busting and anti monopoly policies onto corrupt crooks
-my take on the matter is that corporations shouldn't be hindered by government trust busting
-the government's  intervention would only lead to more and more corruption and destruction to the economy
- just look at Theodore roosevelt's trust busting campaign against the standard oil company in the beginning of the 20th century, the standar oil company broke to several branches after Teddy roosevelt split them up yet the owner of it Rockefeller just becomes more and more rich after the splitting of merger companies. it shouldn't be a matter of state, the state should focus all of their resources onto governing and only governing
- honestly the government should just put their corrupting hands away from the economy

# data[].attributes.body
-if the government doesn't step in and take charge then the free market would carry it
-And from what we've seen if the life necessities of the people are managed by the free market inevitably we would be subject to international monopoly
* free speech and privacy is a life necessity in the digital age, giving over our privacy data and rights of speech to a large company without the government stepping in to give consequences. anti monopoly policy to prevent the spread of private data and the curtail of free speech is essential for a healthy democracy and market
-We would become dependent to the big tech companies that have invested to our life necessities services like delivery by amazon, chatting app by meta, and so much more shouldn't be controlled by a conglomerate
- Basically when they're comfy being a monopoly they know they won't have any competition so why bother innovating?
- I mean if you control the market, the market doesn't control your action but rather your action controls the market
- If you don't innovate then what? People would still buy your product cuz you're a monopoly
-If you raise the price so what? You're the monopoly

# data[].attributes.body
A company that dominates a business sector or industry can use that dominant position to its own advantage and to the disadvantage of its customers, its suppliers, and even its employees. None of these constituencies have any alternative but to accept the status quo.

Notably, the Sherman Antitrust Act does not outlaw monopolies. It outlaws the restraint of interstate commerce or competition in order to create or perpetuate a monopoly.

# data[].attributes.body
A merger is an agreement that unites two existing companies into one new company. There are several types of mergers and also several reasons why companies complete mergers. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are commonly done to expand a company's reach, expand into new segments, or gain market share.

For this reason, mergers and acquisitions among companies in the same business are highly regulated and subject to government review. Merger agreements between companies can be modified or canceled outright if federal authorities conclude that they violate anti-monopoly laws or eliminate consumer choice.

Examples of mergers and acquisitions:
- google acquiring YouTube, android, adspace, waze, Boston dynamics
- amazon acquiring IMDb, audible, Alexa, twitch, whole foods
- apple acquiring Siri and more

# data[].attributes.body
what is monopoly?

monopoly is a dominant position of an industry or a sector by one company, to the point of excluding all other viable competitors.

Monopolies are often discouraged in free-market nations. They are seen as leading to price-gouging and deteriorating quality due to the lack of alternative choices for consumers. They also concentrate wealth, power, and influence in the hands of one or a few individuals.

On the other hand, monopolies in some essential services such as utilities may be encouraged and even enforced by the governments.

Understanding a Monopoly

A monopoly is characterized by the absence of competition, which can lead to high costs for consumers, inferior products ,services, and corrupt business practices.

A company that dominates a business sector or industry can use that position to its advantage at the expense of its customers. It can create artificial scarcities, fix prices, and circumvent the natural laws of supply and demand. It can impede new entrants to the field and inhibit experimentation or a new product development. The consumer, denied the recourse of choosing a competitor, is at its mercy.

A monopolized market often becomes unfair, unequal, and inefficient.