4 ms·

... except for when it's not all ok. It's not ok for a private corporation to play by its own rules and have total control over digital identities, about how yo

by yuvadam 11y ago

... except for when it's not all ok. It's not ok for a private corporation to play by its own rules and have total control over digital identities, about how you get presented online, about if you are or aren't allowed to be forgotten, about which speech is acceptable and which isn't (hint: when it doesn't line up with the corporations agenda). Monopolies are a market failure - capitalism says this very clearly. In the case of data behemoths, I fear we are losing more than just some extra $$$ each month, but some of the core liberties that make up how current modern societies functions. As you mentioned yourself, I am far from being the only one who notices this problem.

manigandham 11y ago
They aren't playing by their own rules - there are laws and regulations. Our government (which is meant to serve the people) is the proper channel to set boundaries for people and companies. If you want change, then start there and be the change you want to be. Markets are imperfect and monopolies are naturally bound to happen as they give the corporation efficiencies of scale and allow them to provide more value that's demanded by consumers at lower cost. This is the good part, with the bad being the anticompetitive issues. It's something we'll deal with either with new companies who can do better or with government regulation to keep things in check. And again, you seem to be missing the part of how you are not required to use Google. It seems like you are able to get all your needs met through other services so what exactly are you worried about? That other people choose to use Google vs. follow your path? Is it not up to them to decide this?
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  The original article deals with the issue of contamination and references that even running your own email servers, around 50% of your mail will still go through google servers. The people opting out here are the digital equivalent of those attempting self-sufficiency, growing all their own food and making all their own clothes. It's inconvenient, clunky, and you still need to buy stuff. The issue here is that due to network effects, Google (+ FB, Ebay, Twitter, Amazon) provide more utility as the monopolies they have inevitably grown into. That means they are a form of vital infrastructure, not competing businesses in a diverse marketplace. (If we don't like the idea that they are 'too big to fail' and actually should be protected, a glimmer of an alternative is provided by China which seems to have stood up functional alternatives to these in a fairly short period, albeit mandated by regulation.)
  - manigandham 11y ago
    Then the government is how we handle this. I'm always surprised at how the companies get all the blame as "evil" when they're just doing what they're allowed and supposed to do. Do these people also hate the massive companies that provide them the internet, oil, electricity, laptops, houses, and everything else they use to basically live their life? The law is the final line and that's what should be worked on - if people want change they should focus their energy here.

by yuvadam 11y ago

manigandham 11y ago

They aren't playing by their own rules - there are laws and regulations. Our government (which is meant to serve the people) is the proper channel to set boundaries for people and companies. If you want change, then start there and be the change you want to be. Markets are imperfect and monopolies are naturally bound to happen as they give the corporation efficiencies of scale and allow them to provide more value that's demanded by consumers at lower cost. This is the good part, with the bad being the anticompetitive issues. It's something we'll deal with either with new companies who can do better or with government regulation to keep things in check. And again, you seem to be missing the part of how you are not required to use Google. It seems like you are able to get all your needs met through other services so what exactly are you worried about? That other people choose to use Google vs. follow your path? Is it not up to them to decide this?

dreamfactory2 11y ago
The original article deals with the issue of contamination and references that even running your own email servers, around 50% of your mail will still go through google servers. The people opting out here are the digital equivalent of those attempting self-sufficiency, growing all their own food and making all their own clothes. It's inconvenient, clunky, and you still need to buy stuff. The issue here is that due to network effects, Google (+ FB, Ebay, Twitter, Amazon) provide more utility as the monopolies they have inevitably grown into. That means they are a form of vital infrastructure, not competing businesses in a diverse marketplace. (If we don't like the idea that they are 'too big to fail' and actually should be protected, a glimmer of an alternative is provided by China which seems to have stood up functional alternatives to these in a fairly short period, albeit mandated by regulation.)
- manigandham 11y ago
  Then the government is how we handle this. I'm always surprised at how the companies get all the blame as "evil" when they're just doing what they're allowed and supposed to do. Do these people also hate the massive companies that provide them the internet, oil, electricity, laptops, houses, and everything else they use to basically live their life? The law is the final line and that's what should be worked on - if people want change they should focus their energy here.