11 ms·

No. The ability to abuse comes specifically from power imbalances, and that’s what we need to take into account when designing policy. This is something that ca

No. The ability to abuse comes specifically from power imbalances, and that’s what we need to take into account when designing policy. This is something that can’t be explicitly enumerated in all cases, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed. We do have anti-trust law for a reason (even if it hasn’t been enforced).

zepto 6y ago
What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?
- feanaro 6y ago
  A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    I'm in agreement, that's why small government at all costs :)
    - the_af 6y ago
      Neither the government nor the State function like a company nor do they have the same incentives or goals.
      - Guthur 6y ago
        Yes they are worse, they're practically untouchable. The delusion is that we've all convinced ourselves that some 4-5 yearly cycle popular voting system actually gives us any control whatsoever. Big companies manipulate the power we've given over to government or lobby for the extra power to be given to the government for them to exploit. It's so obvious it has to be some sort of group psychosis that means we're all continuely having these same discussions.
        the_af 6y ago
        An alternative explanation for the these discussions is that not everyone agrees with your position, nor thinks that a small(er) government would be helpful for society.
        Guthur 6y ago
        And you all think career politicians like Biden or whoever give two fly fucks for you or me, or are they going to be listening to the billion dollar donors that got them elected. These individuals are so far detached from the people that to call it a "democracy" is a travesty. These are oligarchies with the veneer of popular voting providing a pretense of democracy. Also the irony of asking the government to help you from companies that said government gave defacto monopolies to in the form of copyright laws seems to be completely lost on everyone.
  - RobertKerans 6y ago
    There was a podcast a couple of years ago on Enron, and one of the things that stuck with me was the presenter's musing on this cycle where vast power is given to huge profit-maximising machines operating as monopolies. Then one of them gets caught doing {bad thing}, and there's focus on them. And they become the sole target of court cases and investigations and ire (rightly so, but a load of other companies are also either doing the same thing, or are directly enabling them). Then everyone forgets all the lessons that should have been learned and allows the same cycle to repeat until the next time and companies get back to setting policy/laws via lobbying until the next big blow out.
  - zepto 6y ago
    No single entity owns or controls any of those things, perhaps with the exception of search. But more importantly - can you explain what you mean by a power imbalance? Don’t all companies have a power imbalance of some kind with their users?
    - RobertKerans 6y ago
      > No single entity owns or controls any of those things, perhaps with the exception of search. Right, but it's about the level of control. It's not one single entity: instead control is effectively split between a very few megacorporations with an ability to obliterate smaller competition. Their incentive is to control the market, to control both ends of any pipelines they are involved in. Which is the same as any company, sure, but it is the level of power that these companies have that is worrying. It may not be a bad thing with bad effects -- it's really convenient in many ways! The power gives them the ability to produce some really good things! But history would suggest that, as a general rule, it is not a great idea to hand extremely large amounts of power and control to a few entities who are only beholden to (and whose only real aim is to) generate money for investors.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > But history would suggest that, as a general rule, it is not a great idea to hand extremely large amounts of power and control to a few entities who are only beholden to (and whose only real aim is to) generate money for investors. I’d like to see this general rule somewhere. People say it often, and cite a few examples, but nothing that amounts to a general rule that I have seen. Also, it’s simply not true that these companies only real aim is to generate money from investors. If you look at the incentive structures for the people involved, that starts to look like an untenable position. For example there are a lot of subject matter s experts whose incentive is to build careers based on their contributions and expertise - e.g. Chris Lattner. This is just one example of how this reductive idea of what a company is simply breaks down. Certainly some companies - usually financial ones - have no other goal, but outside of the financial sector this is just not true. And really - the companies we’re talking about have only had this ‘power’ for just over a decade, and frankly all of their products, Google, Apple, and Facebook are quite lacking. There is no room to compete head to head with them, but plenty of room to innovate and compete in way that they are simply under delivering.

zepto 6y ago

What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?

feanaro 6y ago
A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.
- Guthur 6y ago
  I'm in agreement, that's why small government at all costs :)
  - the_af 6y ago
    Neither the government nor the State function like a company nor do they have the same incentives or goals.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      Yes they are worse, they're practically untouchable. The delusion is that we've all convinced ourselves that some 4-5 yearly cycle popular voting system actually gives us any control whatsoever. Big companies manipulate the power we've given over to government or lobby for the extra power to be given to the government for them to exploit. It's so obvious it has to be some sort of group psychosis that means we're all continuely having these same discussions.
      - the_af 6y ago
        An alternative explanation for the these discussions is that not everyone agrees with your position, nor thinks that a small(er) government would be helpful for society.
        Guthur 6y ago
        And you all think career politicians like Biden or whoever give two fly fucks for you or me, or are they going to be listening to the billion dollar donors that got them elected. These individuals are so far detached from the people that to call it a "democracy" is a travesty. These are oligarchies with the veneer of popular voting providing a pretense of democracy. Also the irony of asking the government to help you from companies that said government gave defacto monopolies to in the form of copyright laws seems to be completely lost on everyone.
- RobertKerans 6y ago
  There was a podcast a couple of years ago on Enron, and one of the things that stuck with me was the presenter's musing on this cycle where vast power is given to huge profit-maximising machines operating as monopolies. Then one of them gets caught doing {bad thing}, and there's focus on them. And they become the sole target of court cases and investigations and ire (rightly so, but a load of other companies are also either doing the same thing, or are directly enabling them). Then everyone forgets all the lessons that should have been learned and allows the same cycle to repeat until the next time and companies get back to setting policy/laws via lobbying until the next big blow out.
- zepto 6y ago
  No single entity owns or controls any of those things, perhaps with the exception of search. But more importantly - can you explain what you mean by a power imbalance? Don’t all companies have a power imbalance of some kind with their users?
  - RobertKerans 6y ago
    > No single entity owns or controls any of those things, perhaps with the exception of search. Right, but it's about the level of control. It's not one single entity: instead control is effectively split between a very few megacorporations with an ability to obliterate smaller competition. Their incentive is to control the market, to control both ends of any pipelines they are involved in. Which is the same as any company, sure, but it is the level of power that these companies have that is worrying. It may not be a bad thing with bad effects -- it's really convenient in many ways! The power gives them the ability to produce some really good things! But history would suggest that, as a general rule, it is not a great idea to hand extremely large amounts of power and control to a few entities who are only beholden to (and whose only real aim is to) generate money for investors.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > But history would suggest that, as a general rule, it is not a great idea to hand extremely large amounts of power and control to a few entities who are only beholden to (and whose only real aim is to) generate money for investors. I’d like to see this general rule somewhere. People say it often, and cite a few examples, but nothing that amounts to a general rule that I have seen. Also, it’s simply not true that these companies only real aim is to generate money from investors. If you look at the incentive structures for the people involved, that starts to look like an untenable position. For example there are a lot of subject matter s experts whose incentive is to build careers based on their contributions and expertise - e.g. Chris Lattner. This is just one example of how this reductive idea of what a company is simply breaks down. Certainly some companies - usually financial ones - have no other goal, but outside of the financial sector this is just not true. And really - the companies we’re talking about have only had this ‘power’ for just over a decade, and frankly all of their products, Google, Apple, and Facebook are quite lacking. There is no room to compete head to head with them, but plenty of room to innovate and compete in way that they are simply under delivering.