5 ms·

I definitely qgree that safe harbor is important I think the main thing about tech is that it makes accessing the global market easier than ever. Monopolies in

by rtpg 9y ago

I definitely qgree that safe harbor is important I think the main thing about tech is that it makes accessing the global market easier than ever. Monopolies in one sector can now extremely easily hop into another market. If anything it feels like an accelerated version of the railroad barons It sure feels like antitrust laws could be used effectively. Ultimately monopolies do have a lot of money and lobbying power though. Imagine being big enough to basically absorb the billions in fines from the EU. You're either a bank or Google. How do you fix that apart from ripping the company up into small pieces like with AT&T

ethbro 9y ago
Imho, article is largely missing the bigger point: stifling of innovation. Regulation should be focused on removing FB / Google's ability to unfairly leverage their size to thwart up and coming competitors. Otherwise you simply freeze the status quo and cement FB and Google into unassailable market constants. Sure you can regulate them to keep them from acting poorly, but what's the point if they can still squash the next Facebook or Google? Edit: Curious on thoughts on this, but it doesn't seem to me like a progressive corporate tax rate (including mandatory minimum) based on market share (with the overage dedicated to funding basic research) would be a terrible idea. If you have outsized market share, you're probably receiving more than your fair share of the commons, so reasonable to pay that back.
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  Every time I see that phrase I know the person who said it will never be able to answer this, but I still am tempted to ask: please define "fair share" and who exactly determines it and how.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Fair: an equitable distribution of resources and burdens according to community values and beliefs It's not rocket science. We (humans) use it every day. It's just contextually and subjectively defined by group consensus.
    - dmitrygr 9y ago
      Who in the "community" decides which burdens are equitable to which others? Consensus between whom? Shall we have a 100% democratic vote where every citizen participates to decide the new regulatory burden on these companies? What's the average between "leave them alone," "tax them more," "dismantle them," and "hang the founders as an example to others"? I've seen all these options voiced here. Since you do this "every day," please help me understand how to average those "fairly"
      - electricEmu 9y ago
        Your question is one very close with bike shedding. I'm unsure why you would want to bring up the subject, having offered no solutions yourself. Your comment history suggests you have the answer to the question already or the ability to seek it quickly Should you wish to continue these lines of questioning then I suggest you author and submit an article. Your line of questioning would both fit better and garner better responses in a thread if its own.
        cgmg 9y ago
        What's wrong with asking someone to clarify their claim?
        electricEmu 9y ago
        I asked for specifics and the OP clarified with specifics by editing their comment. My comment will stand as-is to reflect the original posting. Why would you ask if the point of view is upsetting, then drastically rephrase your comment to "clarification"? Changing your comment that drastically is quite disingenuous. The original better demonstrated intent, which was to demean, not clarify.
      - wz1000 9y ago
        The community has always decided the wealth distribution in society. It is not some "invisible hand" that controls it. The wealth distribution, as it exists today, is a result of purposeful decisions starting all the way at the Enclosure of the Commons. The tax code, legal system, concept of property(intellectual and otherwise) etc. are not the result of inevitable market forces ordained by a higher power, they are carefully designed. If the "community" set up these systems(on which these companies are parasitic on), they can change them in a way that benefits the community at large.
- alexashka 9y ago
  I don't think government agencies are at all concerned with 'stifling of innovation'. I don't think your average intelligent person is at all concerned with it, let alone everyone else. Regulation (invasive action is general) is for when enough people are really unhappy. Who's unhappy in this instance? The innovators?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Society in general, when Facebook and Google becomes the next ATT and all innovation much be funnelled through (and approved by) them. The issue with monopolies (e.g. ATT in the Ma Bell days) is not that they're intrinsically evil, but that they're terrible at allowing innovations to reach the market.
Eridrus 9y ago
> Imagine being big enough to basically absorb the billions in fines from the EU. These billions in fines are based on % of revenue; so by definition almost every business will be able to absorb the EU's fines; it's this big to be an actual disincentive to an entity that is Google-sized. Large entities are in many ways actually far easier to regulate than small entities, since you can actually keep track of them and hold them accountable.

by rtpg 9y ago

ethbro 9y ago

Imho, article is largely missing the bigger point: stifling of innovation. Regulation should be focused on removing FB / Google's ability to unfairly leverage their size to thwart up and coming competitors. Otherwise you simply freeze the status quo and cement FB and Google into unassailable market constants. Sure you can regulate them to keep them from acting poorly, but what's the point if they can still squash the next Facebook or Google? Edit: Curious on thoughts on this, but it doesn't seem to me like a progressive corporate tax rate (including mandatory minimum) based on market share (with the overage dedicated to funding basic research) would be a terrible idea. If you have outsized market share, you're probably receiving more than your fair share of the commons, so reasonable to pay that back.

dmitrygr 9y ago
Every time I see that phrase I know the person who said it will never be able to answer this, but I still am tempted to ask: please define "fair share" and who exactly determines it and how.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Fair: an equitable distribution of resources and burdens according to community values and beliefs It's not rocket science. We (humans) use it every day. It's just contextually and subjectively defined by group consensus.
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    Who in the "community" decides which burdens are equitable to which others? Consensus between whom? Shall we have a 100% democratic vote where every citizen participates to decide the new regulatory burden on these companies? What's the average between "leave them alone," "tax them more," "dismantle them," and "hang the founders as an example to others"? I've seen all these options voiced here. Since you do this "every day," please help me understand how to average those "fairly"
    - electricEmu 9y ago
      Your question is one very close with bike shedding. I'm unsure why you would want to bring up the subject, having offered no solutions yourself. Your comment history suggests you have the answer to the question already or the ability to seek it quickly Should you wish to continue these lines of questioning then I suggest you author and submit an article. Your line of questioning would both fit better and garner better responses in a thread if its own.
      - cgmg 9y ago
        What's wrong with asking someone to clarify their claim?
        electricEmu 9y ago
        I asked for specifics and the OP clarified with specifics by editing their comment. My comment will stand as-is to reflect the original posting. Why would you ask if the point of view is upsetting, then drastically rephrase your comment to "clarification"? Changing your comment that drastically is quite disingenuous. The original better demonstrated intent, which was to demean, not clarify.
    - wz1000 9y ago
      The community has always decided the wealth distribution in society. It is not some "invisible hand" that controls it. The wealth distribution, as it exists today, is a result of purposeful decisions starting all the way at the Enclosure of the Commons. The tax code, legal system, concept of property(intellectual and otherwise) etc. are not the result of inevitable market forces ordained by a higher power, they are carefully designed. If the "community" set up these systems(on which these companies are parasitic on), they can change them in a way that benefits the community at large.
alexashka 9y ago
I don't think government agencies are at all concerned with 'stifling of innovation'. I don't think your average intelligent person is at all concerned with it, let alone everyone else. Regulation (invasive action is general) is for when enough people are really unhappy. Who's unhappy in this instance? The innovators?
- ethbro 9y ago
  Society in general, when Facebook and Google becomes the next ATT and all innovation much be funnelled through (and approved by) them. The issue with monopolies (e.g. ATT in the Ma Bell days) is not that they're intrinsically evil, but that they're terrible at allowing innovations to reach the market.

Eridrus 9y ago

> Imagine being big enough to basically absorb the billions in fines from the EU. These billions in fines are based on % of revenue; so by definition almost every business will be able to absorb the EU's fines; it's this big to be an actual disincentive to an entity that is Google-sized. Large entities are in many ways actually far easier to regulate than small entities, since you can actually keep track of them and hold them accountable.