7 ms·

> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a completely voluntary decision, especially when

• corndoge 10y ago
  This is false. Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is that simply because a proprietary product has a large mass of users does not mean the users have the right to demand that it be regulated like a public utility.
  • omouse 10y ago
    It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways. And actually yes they do have that right! A corporation is given the privilege to exist by the state, that privilege can also be taken away.
    • DannyBee 10y ago
      "It can in some cases and in some cases they should be turned into infrastructure. We've done the same with power plants and highways. " This is precisely because there are no real alternatives. In fact, when and if solar + batteries becomes an actual viable solution to powering you + your neighbors, ... As for rights, yes, you do have the right, and in fact, personally, while i'm not in favor of trying to turn internet companies into regulated utilities, i am pretty much in favor of killing the LLC and going back to "officers and shareholders are liable" model that used to exist.
      • e12e 10y ago
        I think we need to start looking at the meta-data generated by communication networks (who talks/chats/tweets/etc whom, and when) as a commons, that needs to be regulated. Beyond the European privacy laws designed to protect privacy, I think there should probably be limits on who is allowed to do what, and how one is allowed to store and profit from the knowledge. It should be a regulated privilege to be able to handle this information, in a similar way that it's a privilege to run passenger trains, or even postal and phone services.
  • FabHK 10y ago
    And why not, given that the network effect means that messaging apps are effectively natural monopolies, and even Milton Friedman of the Chicago school allowed for government regulation and intervention in the two cases of 1) externalities and 2) natural monopolies?
  • adrianN 10y ago
    "Using the phone network is a voluntary decision, nobody is forced to own a phone."
    • briandear 10y ago
      There aren't alternatives to a telephone system: there is essentially 'one' telephone. What's App is hardly a monopoly. Users could use SMS, Skype or any number of alternatives that provide almost identical utility. It isn't like comparing a telephone with hand written notes. Interestingly, what led to What's App? Telephone company monopolies on SMS. The internet itself could be considered a public utility -- not what flows over its wires. One solution to this, assuming we want to take the public utility route, is to start charging users like it were a utility. Perhaps €10 per month for German users to offset the lost revenue from the data FB won't be allowed to collect. Then the Germans can tax that €10 just like it taxes phones and everyone will be happy. What's App isn't 'free.' Using that service has a cost. Should Facebook just give away their product? Why would a business do that? Facebook employees don't work for free, so why should Germans get to free ride? A really popular service ought not be regulated by the virtue that it's really popular. There is a mostly free market. What's App isn't essential or even necessary. It's about as 'vital' as Instagram. It isn't like it's the only game in town.. not even close.
      • psykpsyk 10y ago
        You do realize there was a time that you could pay for WhatsApp, don't you? But now you can only pay with your personal data. Sorry if that doesn't quite suit your agenda, but that's how it was and how it is.
    • ryandrake 10y ago
      I detect snark, but it's a true statement.
  • jimmytidey 10y ago
    Natural monopolies are very often regulated because of the negative side effects of not doing so. Which is to say, market dominance has transformed products into utilities in the past. You can argue that should not be the case, but, historically, it very much has been. There's surely a balance to be struck between incentivising firms to innovate by allowing them to earn profits when they develop a good product and allowing a firms to lock-in economic rents forever. How you strike that balance is a value judgement about the kind of society you want to live in.
    • bogomipz 10y ago
      Can you give examples of the natural monopolies you are referring to?
      • jimmytidey 10y ago
        Most classic utilities were at one point or another provided privately - water, telephones, electricity are examples. In each of these examples the delivery infrastructure makes them a natural monopoly. Almost any activity you can think of has been carried out by both the public and private sector in different societies (or the same one). In all industries, very dominant firms are likely to see action from the state.
        • bogomipz 10y ago
          Downvoted for asking for clarification? So I could participate in the discussion better? Awesome.
        • type0 10y ago
          Well, archealogical anthropologists would say that even fire/firemaikng was that at one point in time.
      • bzbarsky 10y ago
        Your electric company. Running two or more sets of power wires to every house so you can have competition on provision of electricity at the last-mile level doesn't really make sense.
  • Iv 10y ago
    I disagree. Some of my clients and contractors use specific messaging platform (mostly skype, facebook and wechat) and I do not have the power to make them change. It is not fair to ask people concerned about privacy to pay a toll in terms of professional outreach.
    • DannyBee 10y ago
      "and I do not have the power to make them change." This is pretty irrelevant. they have the power to change. There are plenty of alternatives, in fact, you listed them!
  • zepto 10y ago
    Users have the right to demand anything they want within the free speech laws of their country. They also have the power to impose regulation on any kind of activity not already protected by precedent or constitution, if they can use the democratic process of the courts and lawmakers to impose it.
  • anexprogrammer 10y ago
    I imagine the electric companies made similar arguments at the start of the 20th century. > Market dominance does not transform a proprietary product into a basic utility Agreed. Isn't it more that it becomes so ubiquitous and expected that it starts to be considered a basic utility by the public? In the case of social and IM it's the network effect that matters - where are family and friends. Once a certain tipping point was reached you'd be hard pushed to find many willing to live without mains water or electric. These days you'd be hard pushed to find many willing to live without internet, social networking, and IM chat. They're becoming utilities, and quotes like from their counsel "well just don't use it, it's optional" ring, for the majority of the public, increasingly hollow. Just as our definition of essentials, poverty, minimum income and inflation (in the UK at least) have all been adjusted to reflect the internet age and provide for internet connections, mobile phones etc, our defnition of utilities should too.
    • JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      I'm doubtful. With that definition, lattes should be made a utility. So should shoes. Tires. A utility is indicated by, requiring so heavy an investment in infrastructure that would be onerous to the public to support duplicates.
      • anexprogrammer 10y ago
        Fair point, I was only thinking of things at that scale when writing, so requiring big investment and infrastructure - phone networks, social networks, water, etc.
      • xg15 10y ago
        The difference is of course the network effect: If I'm not happy with the shoes I'm wearing, there is a huge range of shoes I can buy without any negative consequences for me. Switching messengers or social networks can have the obvious consequences that you lose your network. That way, even if there are plenty of competitors in theory, the lock-in can be the same as with a monopoly.
      • tw04 10y ago
  • e12e 10y ago
    >>> Using the messaging service is a voluntary decision >> >> Once a critical mass uses a messaging service, it's not a >> completely voluntary decision, especially when there is >> no open standard with inter-operable competing apps. > > This is false. Market dominance does not transform a > proprietary product into a basic utility. What I mean is > that simply because a proprietary product has a large > mass of users does not mean the users have the right to > demand that it be regulated like a public utility. (Emphasis added). Messaging services are special because of network effects. The postal service, the telegraph, the phone system, the Internet are all special services. I would argue that email should probably have some special regulation beyond SPAM - the way big players like Google and Microsoft handle email is actually a problem already - perfectly good email, from a perfectly valid domain, from an ip without any terrible history - can sometimes end up as SPAM. This in turn makes it harder for people to compete by hosting their own email, in essence market dominance prevents competition -- and harms the commons. (Yes, the initial harm has been caused and is being caused by spammers -- but the dwindling possibility of running decentralized services on the Internet could very well end up being much more damaging than the cost of SPAM ever was). And IM and video chat and so on could probably also need some more regulation at some point - because it seems obvious the big players are actively working towards artificial monopolies in order to control the flow of data, so that they can sit on the biggest pile of meta-data (and sometimes data/content) in order to make money (in the short term from simple meta-data/network analysis and advertising, in the long run from having the richest data set on which to do more advanced, automated machine learning). In this crazy world in which water and other natural resources, previously controlled by and for the public, I can see how people would argue that it somehow makes sense for a private entity to curate and profit from the information that hides in the rich metadata of all human electronic communication -- I think it would be a very good idea to regulate this along the lines of other commons. An example might be parks and spaces accessible to the public - where there are certain things that owners cannot do - or have to do.
• ryandrake 10y ago
  What did we all do in the past without those CRITICAL messaging services? Did people simply not communicate before IM apps were invented?
  • kuschku 10y ago
    Things just took a few hours longer, making planning a party a thing of days or weeks. With whatsapp, I can plan a birthday party in 20 minutes, on the same day as the birthday, while also ensuring everyone who couldn’t answer a call got the message.