9 ms·

collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry. Big money flowing straight to uncle sam's pocket. The worst part of it

by meira 10y ago

collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry. Big money flowing straight to uncle sam's pocket. The worst part of it is that FB/WPP uses the same technology to maintain an huge army of brainless evangelists of their (and us govt) interests, making FB users think they get more from using facebook than would receive in a local social network. But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with millions of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google.

gruez 10y ago
>But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with millions of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google. Kinda helps if you're the only option because your foreign competitors are blocked with the help of the government.
- meira 10y ago
  Kinda helps if this is the option that benefits most if not all population of the country.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    How does it benefit "most if not all"? Does the service provided is better than any other just by the nature of being closed? Do the profits get shared to the users? Is the data free from surveillance or abuse by the government? You are starting from your value system and reaching conclusions that are simply not there. To me it looks like WeChat is even worse for the people that FB ot whatsapp.
    - meira 10y ago
      For you and for a lot of people, rglullis. This is the mainstream West media thinking. But I missed your arguments proving that WeChat could be worse to China than is FB to Brazil.
      - rglullis 10y ago
        Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves. Also, you are moving the goal posts. I could go on for a while and give examples on how the Big Chinese Companies are actually bad for the people - e.g, one simple case: censorship in WeChat is worse than in FB and it is demanded by the Government - but my question was actually "How do they benefit 'most if not all' of the population?" I mean, how any of these "benefits" are any different that a FB user from any part of the world can't get on Facebook. Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
        meira 10y ago
        > Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves. Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights to who? Do people from Africa, South Asia and Latin America fit on it? > Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed? Because they generate chinese high tech jobs and an extraordinary supply chain. If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better.
        rglullis 10y ago
        You still haven't showed any convincing argument why Facebook "hurts freedom", at least systemically. The bubbles of these gigantic social networks and the closed walled-gardens are bad for sure, but Zuckerberg isn't the one that gets to decide what can or not be said, and surely he is not the one persecuting anyone with dissenting views, and much less he has a monopoly on how information can be shared, which would allow him to control people that could spread any kind of information that doesn't align with "Uncle Sam's interests". > "If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better." That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
- lunula 10y ago
  I'm not sure if a total hegemony is preferable, even if it were incredibly efficient at doing what it was meant to do. Government is one of the few human factors capable of resisting a multinational corporation. I am somewhat sympathetic to their objectives, and I can't blame them for blocking foreign competition if they feel it is in the social interest. States tacitly support corporations that operate within them. And as we see with the embedding of the US surveillance apparatus inside of companies like Facebook and Google, they can also become dependent on these systems for their security. Security is not only related to external factors, and China apparently regards the internal dominance of WeChat as vital to its security. Countries should be allowed to promote local media companies. They have the right. These companies are extremely powerful, and are certainly a mechanism through which propaganda flow. In fact, I'm disturbed that essential communication services may be co-opted as they have been, and I wish my government would actively support utility-like alternatives or work to suppress the negative aspects of omniscient platforms like Facebook. Why should the whole world's communication flow through one company? This seems like an invitation to be abused by whoever has control.
outworlder 10y ago
> collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry. Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault. Also, maybe people are not really interested in a "local" social network? I have friends from all over the world. Should we now push for local social networks and federate them? This has worked so well in the past. Disclaimer: I am brazilian.
- meira 10y ago
  > Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault. This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries, and that's is why, in the first place, how they got in the top of the industry. Here in Brazil, unfortunately, we have the only other type of people that thinks this "philosophy" is good: the brazilians "vira-latas" (mutts), the ones who think that the best economic theories that works is the ones imposed by "developed" economies. Most of these guys (like the one I'm replying) don't know about history and how these economies got developed to begin with. And it has nothing to do with "liberalism" or free market. Much the opposite.
  - outworlder 10y ago
    > This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries And Brazil isn't? I have lived during the "reserva de mercado" times, where imports from "competitors" where not allowed at all. This has created a enormous technological deficit, which I think we haven't recovered from yet. Protectionism is still going strong, with ~60% import tax on foreign products. And guess what, even with all the protection, the industry is still in shambles. Politicians are still trying to erect more walls, such as trying to require internet companies to have datacenters in Brazil in order to be able to operate. Do you think this is the right way to go? I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.

by meira 10y ago

gruez 10y ago

>But Baidu and WeChat proves that this way of thinking is wrong: with millions of users, is not that difficult to compete with FB, WPP or Google. Kinda helps if you're the only option because your foreign competitors are blocked with the help of the government.

meira 10y ago
Kinda helps if this is the option that benefits most if not all population of the country.
- rglullis 10y ago
  How does it benefit "most if not all"? Does the service provided is better than any other just by the nature of being closed? Do the profits get shared to the users? Is the data free from surveillance or abuse by the government? You are starting from your value system and reaching conclusions that are simply not there. To me it looks like WeChat is even worse for the people that FB ot whatsapp.
  - meira 10y ago
    For you and for a lot of people, rglullis. This is the mainstream West media thinking. But I missed your arguments proving that WeChat could be worse to China than is FB to Brazil.
    - rglullis 10y ago
      Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves. Also, you are moving the goal posts. I could go on for a while and give examples on how the Big Chinese Companies are actually bad for the people - e.g, one simple case: censorship in WeChat is worse than in FB and it is demanded by the Government - but my question was actually "How do they benefit 'most if not all' of the population?" I mean, how any of these "benefits" are any different that a FB user from any part of the world can't get on Facebook. Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed?
      - meira 10y ago
        > Please drop the conspiracionist tone if you want a serious conversation, or at the very least drop this silly attempt at sweeping very important arguments under the rug just to make your point. These "simple" things like Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights are not is not "Western media thinking". It is the core basis of Western values themselves. Freedom of Speech, respect for the Rule of Law and Individual Rights to who? Do people from Africa, South Asia and Latin America fit on it? > Why is that WeChat is better than FB to "most if not all" Chinese by virtue of being closed? Because they generate chinese high tech jobs and an extraordinary supply chain. If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better.
        rglullis 10y ago
        You still haven't showed any convincing argument why Facebook "hurts freedom", at least systemically. The bubbles of these gigantic social networks and the closed walled-gardens are bad for sure, but Zuckerberg isn't the one that gets to decide what can or not be said, and surely he is not the one persecuting anyone with dissenting views, and much less he has a monopoly on how information can be shared, which would allow him to control people that could spread any kind of information that doesn't align with "Uncle Sam's interests". > "If both of them hurts "freedom", the one that brings more prosperity is better." That is a false equivalence (the kind of damage to Freedom is not the same), and still does not show how WeChat benefits "most if not all" Chinese. Even if you reduce to the pure economic argument, you would still have to show that the people not working for WeChat wouldn't be working for Facebook or any other competitor in case China had an open economy.
lunula 10y ago
I'm not sure if a total hegemony is preferable, even if it were incredibly efficient at doing what it was meant to do. Government is one of the few human factors capable of resisting a multinational corporation. I am somewhat sympathetic to their objectives, and I can't blame them for blocking foreign competition if they feel it is in the social interest. States tacitly support corporations that operate within them. And as we see with the embedding of the US surveillance apparatus inside of companies like Facebook and Google, they can also become dependent on these systems for their security. Security is not only related to external factors, and China apparently regards the internal dominance of WeChat as vital to its security. Countries should be allowed to promote local media companies. They have the right. These companies are extremely powerful, and are certainly a mechanism through which propaganda flow. In fact, I'm disturbed that essential communication services may be co-opted as they have been, and I wish my government would actively support utility-like alternatives or work to suppress the negative aspects of omniscient platforms like Facebook. Why should the whole world's communication flow through one company? This seems like an invitation to be abused by whoever has control.

outworlder 10y ago

> collecting every penny spent on internet, leaving nothing to our national tech industry. Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault. Also, maybe people are not really interested in a "local" social network? I have friends from all over the world. Should we now push for local social networks and federate them? This has worked so well in the past. Disclaimer: I am brazilian.

meira 10y ago
> Oh, cry me a river. It's a global economy, this "national tech industry" bull needs to stop. If they can't out-compete globally, that's too bad. Maybe we should try to figure out WHY they cannot effectively compete in the first place? Hint: it's not Facebook's fault. This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries, and that's is why, in the first place, how they got in the top of the industry. Here in Brazil, unfortunately, we have the only other type of people that thinks this "philosophy" is good: the brazilians "vira-latas" (mutts), the ones who think that the best economic theories that works is the ones imposed by "developed" economies. Most of these guys (like the one I'm replying) don't know about history and how these economies got developed to begin with. And it has nothing to do with "liberalism" or free market. Much the opposite.
- outworlder 10y ago
  > This "philosophy" is great, if you're the one with the goodies and services everybody wants. Most of the countries in the top of this chain are VERY protective of their own industries And Brazil isn't? I have lived during the "reserva de mercado" times, where imports from "competitors" where not allowed at all. This has created a enormous technological deficit, which I think we haven't recovered from yet. Protectionism is still going strong, with ~60% import tax on foreign products. And guess what, even with all the protection, the industry is still in shambles. Politicians are still trying to erect more walls, such as trying to require internet companies to have datacenters in Brazil in order to be able to operate. Do you think this is the right way to go? I'll try to ignore your ad-hominen. I have lived through a bunch of the history you are claiming I don't know anything about.