5 ms·

Digital infrastructure became so important that it must be regulated. We can't leave app stores at the whim of mega corporations.

by neves 15d ago

a2ff6eeb0 15d ago
The mega corporations need to be broken up.
KetoManx64 15d ago
[flagged]
alerighi 15d ago
Nooo what you are saying communist. I also think so, but each time someone (typically the EU) does something in the direction (e.g. digital market act) the US government, companies and citizens accuse us to be communists, against progress, that we overregulate, that the "free market" regulates by itself, and similar bullshit.
- neves 15d ago
  The irony is that just in communist China the corporations must submit to the Government. You may argue that it is terrible. They don't have a democratic gov. But the alternative looks worse every day.
- mplewis 15d ago
  "Everything I don't like is communism"
charcircuit 15d ago
Just because Google built something valuable that doesn't mean the government should take control of it. This line of reasoning also leads to the government taking over YouTube and changing the rules there due to how "important" it is.
- mplewis 15d ago
  you're not making a good argument for privatization lol
- jmusall 15d ago
  The things mega corporations built could be even more valuable (for society) if they didn't intentionally restrict for their own and their shareholders' benefit what you can do with them. "Regulating" also doesn't mean "taking control".
  - charcircuit 15d ago
    >shareholders' benefit Since they are public companies the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit. >"Regulating" also doesn't mean "taking shareholders' benefit Technically true, but if the regulations are just suggestions then they won't accomplish anything. When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting, not just sending them a strongly worded letter.
    - jmusall 15d ago
      > the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit Yes, but there can be other benefits than monetary ones. Besides, I find it rediculous to believe that wealthy people receiving more benefits automatically translates to improvements for the general society. To add another point: The monetary value these companies create is often only possible because of their monopolistic market distortion. I don't think it can be a net benefit for society when competitors have little to no chance to offer a better product. > When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting That's true. In your original comment you also said "government taking over YouTube" which is why I thought we were talking about complete transfer of control à la planned economy, which is normally not the goal of regulations.

Digital infrastructure became so important that it must be regulated. We can't leave app stores at the whim of mega corporations.

by neves 15d ago

Digital infrastructure became so important that it must be regulated. We can't leave app stores at the whim of mega corporations.

a2ff6eeb0 15d ago

The mega corporations need to be broken up.

KetoManx64 15d ago

[flagged]

alerighi 15d ago

Nooo what you are saying communist. I also think so, but each time someone (typically the EU) does something in the direction (e.g. digital market act) the US government, companies and citizens accuse us to be communists, against progress, that we overregulate, that the "free market" regulates by itself, and similar bullshit.

neves 15d ago
The irony is that just in communist China the corporations must submit to the Government. You may argue that it is terrible. They don't have a democratic gov. But the alternative looks worse every day.
mplewis 15d ago
"Everything I don't like is communism"

charcircuit 15d ago

Just because Google built something valuable that doesn't mean the government should take control of it. This line of reasoning also leads to the government taking over YouTube and changing the rules there due to how "important" it is.

mplewis 15d ago
you're not making a good argument for privatization lol
jmusall 15d ago
The things mega corporations built could be even more valuable (for society) if they didn't intentionally restrict for their own and their shareholders' benefit what you can do with them. "Regulating" also doesn't mean "taking control".
- charcircuit 15d ago
  >shareholders' benefit Since they are public companies the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit. >"Regulating" also doesn't mean "taking shareholders' benefit Technically true, but if the regulations are just suggestions then they won't accomplish anything. When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting, not just sending them a strongly worded letter.
  - jmusall 15d ago
    > the shareholder's benefit is to society's benefit Yes, but there can be other benefits than monetary ones. Besides, I find it rediculous to believe that wealthy people receiving more benefits automatically translates to improvements for the general society. To add another point: The monetary value these companies create is often only possible because of their monopolistic market distortion. I don't think it can be a net benefit for society when competitors have little to no chance to offer a better product. > When people suggest regulation they want to control how these companies are acting That's true. In your original comment you also said "government taking over YouTube" which is why I thought we were talking about complete transfer of control à la planned economy, which is normally not the goal of regulations.