7 ms·

To paint a less rosy picture, many countries are good at keeping out US based tracking / social media monopolies because they want to support their own tracking

by serhei 9y ago

To paint a less rosy picture, many countries are good at keeping out US based tracking / social media monopolies because they want to support their own tracking / social media monopolies. It's kind of a "well, duh" moment that China is going to support its own Internet services rather than let that data be collected by people in the United States. Russia has a similar government-backed Internet services ecosystem going on, although they dropped the ball on blogging and wound up having to do a complex operation to buy Livejournal (where all the Russians were) and move the servers to Russian territory.

Joe-Z 9y ago
>To paint a less rosy picture... I think different companies, although they may be monopolies in their own right, spread out over multiple countries is still preferable to a global monopoly. Not just because of data collection, also regarding keeping tech know-how locally for example.
- wbl 9y ago
  It really isn't. Competition globally is better for consumers. Imagine if you had to drive only US cars to keep automotive knowledge local.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hodgesrm 9y ago
    Cars are not really a valid analogy here because we're talking about services with network effects that impose behavioral norms for all users regardless of location. To use your driving example it would be like saying that to use a car everyone has to drive on the same side of the road or accept identical pollution control standards. That's obviously not the case. Cars are adapted--sometimes quite substantially--to local jurisdictions.
    - drawnwren 9y ago
      Korea and Japan actually did this with cars. Enforcing extremely high tariffs on all imported vehicles. It seems to have worked well for their automotive Industries.
      - bhalp1 9y ago
        AFAIK the US also has significant tariffs on certain kinds of imported vehicles, namely pickup trucks.
        kalleboo 9y ago
        I think it's a tariff on commercial vehicles in general. Which Ford worked around by shipping over "passenger cars" and then tearing out the extra seats in the US, turning them into vans http://blog.caranddriver.com/feds-watching-fords-run-around-on-chicken-tax-riles-customs-officials/ http://blog.caranddriver.com/feds-watching-fords-run-around-...
      - dilemma 9y ago
        The US economy was founded on tariffs. No such thing as a free market in North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#/media/File:Average_Tariff_Rates_in_USA_(1821-2016).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo...
        petre 9y ago
        Tariffs in cars in a big market such as the US encourage foreign car companies to set up locally or at least in a NAFTA member country.
        dilemma 9y ago
        So?
        9y ago
  - dreamfactored 9y ago
    Monopolies are bad for consumers. The Chinese government is protecting Chinese markets from global monopolies (and also acting as the world's biggest innovation VC). Other countries have been asleep at the wheel and are only just starting to wake up with uber and airbnb. (Also the fact that fb has been caught targeting Kremlin propaganda to voters in foreign elections makes me wonder if they will get shuttered in a lot of places. And Twitter can only be next.)
    - davemp 9y ago
      > The Chinese government is protecting Chinese [control over citizens] markets > and also acting as the world's biggest innovation VC Wew. > Other countries have been asleep at the wheel Calm down with the CN propaganda.
      - dreamfactored 9y ago
        It's a general question of national security for any country, and in the broader sense which also includes control of their economies. The Chinese have been very smart about this, other countries should look at this. I don't think that's pushing a pro-Chinese line so much as about other countries needing to learn something about protecting national interest from 'foreign data invaders' (which have been mainly US to date but which I can see starting to include Russia and China)
    - TheKarateKid 9y ago
      There's a difference between protecting from global monopolies, and totally eliminating any competition. The fact that the Chinese sanctioned companies become monopolies themselves is even more proof that it's about nationalism than protection from monopolies.
      - dreamfactored 9y ago
        > it's about nationalism than protection from monopolies Well if I was Chinese I guess I'd hope my government was making some effort to protect the national interest at least. Of course they are developing their own monopolies and have some pretty terrifying social control programs in the works. That can be criticised in its own right and hopefully it will be. But to try and make the case that FB is a benevolent saviour of the Chinese citizenry from their evil government is nonsense and whataboutery. If you must believe in the US as some kind of global beacon of free speech and democracy, then at least don't think that just being the lesser of two evils is a really great way to promote this. The hard problem is that any proprietary social platform has to have a mass of people using it to be particularly useful, and any social platform that big is collecting data that makes it a huge security risk and economic factor at the national level. The only solutions I can think of are to have social networks under national control or to promote interoperability between smaller networks and partition data collection to an acceptable level for national security purposes.
  - krageon 9y ago
    What Facebook (or for that matter Google) does is not competition. They're far too large to really compete with when you're getting up and running. Everything that even gets close to something they do or might want to do gets bought out. I can't imagine anyone thinks such a situation is in the best interest of the user.
    - thecrazyone 9y ago
      When they buy other companies, note: 1) It's a voluntary transaction and is not compulsory 2) They precisely buy because it would be harder to build it from scratch. Which refutes your claim that Google or FB can't be competed against. edit: formatting
      - heavenlyblue 9y ago
        Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is" and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users. For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting a live video?
        thecrazyone 9y ago
        > Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is" Everybody is not there, even on Facebook, there is no such social network yet. > and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users. Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook has paid premium prices for the former two and gave a pretty high offer for snapchat. They wouldn't do that if they're concerned ( of course, neither you nor I can confirm their emotional state, but we can derive useful conclusions from their actions) > For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting a live video? Have you stopped using facebook? Then why should they care? They will care IMO, but the point is by continuing to use facebook, you've shown that you weigh the benefits of facebook to be more than the costs/annoyances. So, you're happy enough as far as they're concerned, they might try and make you happier but that's left to them :) Edit: Whoops! I hit submit before completing my last sentence
  - justonepost 9y ago
    Monoculture = bad. Rich companies are pretty good at kicking the ladder. Little bit of anti-trust goes a long way.
  - thecrazyone 9y ago
    thank you for espousing the free markets ideology (I concur with you). I don't know why but these days, I feel HN also has become protectionist (where I'd have expected free marketeers). Perhaps this is out of context, but I wonder if Trump is a symptom of this protectionism or if they're unrelated
justlearning123 9y ago
There are only two countries which have homegrown companies protected by their governments. OP's comment still holds true about US companies not necessarily being good for everyone.
tripzilch 9y ago
The alternative of all the data siloed to a single world power, the US, is not better. I was going to add ".. unless you're American", but I'm not even sure if such a concentration of power would be a net neutral (or good) in the long run, for any citizen, US or elsewhere.

by serhei 9y ago

Joe-Z 9y ago

>To paint a less rosy picture... I think different companies, although they may be monopolies in their own right, spread out over multiple countries is still preferable to a global monopoly. Not just because of data collection, also regarding keeping tech know-how locally for example.

wbl 9y ago
It really isn't. Competition globally is better for consumers. Imagine if you had to drive only US cars to keep automotive knowledge local.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hodgesrm 9y ago
  Cars are not really a valid analogy here because we're talking about services with network effects that impose behavioral norms for all users regardless of location. To use your driving example it would be like saying that to use a car everyone has to drive on the same side of the road or accept identical pollution control standards. That's obviously not the case. Cars are adapted--sometimes quite substantially--to local jurisdictions.
  - drawnwren 9y ago
    Korea and Japan actually did this with cars. Enforcing extremely high tariffs on all imported vehicles. It seems to have worked well for their automotive Industries.
    - bhalp1 9y ago
      AFAIK the US also has significant tariffs on certain kinds of imported vehicles, namely pickup trucks.
      - kalleboo 9y ago
        I think it's a tariff on commercial vehicles in general. Which Ford worked around by shipping over "passenger cars" and then tearing out the extra seats in the US, turning them into vans http://blog.caranddriver.com/feds-watching-fords-run-around-on-chicken-tax-riles-customs-officials/ http://blog.caranddriver.com/feds-watching-fords-run-around-...
    - dilemma 9y ago
      The US economy was founded on tariffs. No such thing as a free market in North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#/media/File:Average_Tariff_Rates_in_USA_(1821-2016).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo...
      - petre 9y ago
        Tariffs in cars in a big market such as the US encourage foreign car companies to set up locally or at least in a NAFTA member country.
        dilemma 9y ago
        So?
        9y ago
- dreamfactored 9y ago
  Monopolies are bad for consumers. The Chinese government is protecting Chinese markets from global monopolies (and also acting as the world's biggest innovation VC). Other countries have been asleep at the wheel and are only just starting to wake up with uber and airbnb. (Also the fact that fb has been caught targeting Kremlin propaganda to voters in foreign elections makes me wonder if they will get shuttered in a lot of places. And Twitter can only be next.)
  - davemp 9y ago
    > The Chinese government is protecting Chinese [control over citizens] markets > and also acting as the world's biggest innovation VC Wew. > Other countries have been asleep at the wheel Calm down with the CN propaganda.
    - dreamfactored 9y ago
      It's a general question of national security for any country, and in the broader sense which also includes control of their economies. The Chinese have been very smart about this, other countries should look at this. I don't think that's pushing a pro-Chinese line so much as about other countries needing to learn something about protecting national interest from 'foreign data invaders' (which have been mainly US to date but which I can see starting to include Russia and China)
  - TheKarateKid 9y ago
    There's a difference between protecting from global monopolies, and totally eliminating any competition. The fact that the Chinese sanctioned companies become monopolies themselves is even more proof that it's about nationalism than protection from monopolies.
    - dreamfactored 9y ago
      > it's about nationalism than protection from monopolies Well if I was Chinese I guess I'd hope my government was making some effort to protect the national interest at least. Of course they are developing their own monopolies and have some pretty terrifying social control programs in the works. That can be criticised in its own right and hopefully it will be. But to try and make the case that FB is a benevolent saviour of the Chinese citizenry from their evil government is nonsense and whataboutery. If you must believe in the US as some kind of global beacon of free speech and democracy, then at least don't think that just being the lesser of two evils is a really great way to promote this. The hard problem is that any proprietary social platform has to have a mass of people using it to be particularly useful, and any social platform that big is collecting data that makes it a huge security risk and economic factor at the national level. The only solutions I can think of are to have social networks under national control or to promote interoperability between smaller networks and partition data collection to an acceptable level for national security purposes.
- krageon 9y ago
  What Facebook (or for that matter Google) does is not competition. They're far too large to really compete with when you're getting up and running. Everything that even gets close to something they do or might want to do gets bought out. I can't imagine anyone thinks such a situation is in the best interest of the user.
  - thecrazyone 9y ago
    When they buy other companies, note: 1) It's a voluntary transaction and is not compulsory 2) They precisely buy because it would be harder to build it from scratch. Which refutes your claim that Google or FB can't be competed against. edit: formatting
    - heavenlyblue 9y ago
      Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is" and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users. For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting a live video?
      - thecrazyone 9y ago
        > Please, at least one example of a social networking application where "everybody is" Everybody is not there, even on Facebook, there is no such social network yet. > and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users. Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook has paid premium prices for the former two and gave a pretty high offer for snapchat. They wouldn't do that if they're concerned ( of course, neither you nor I can confirm their emotional state, but we can derive useful conclusions from their actions) > For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting a live video? Have you stopped using facebook? Then why should they care? They will care IMO, but the point is by continuing to use facebook, you've shown that you weigh the benefits of facebook to be more than the costs/annoyances. So, you're happy enough as far as they're concerned, they might try and make you happier but that's left to them :) Edit: Whoops! I hit submit before completing my last sentence
- justonepost 9y ago
  Monoculture = bad. Rich companies are pretty good at kicking the ladder. Little bit of anti-trust goes a long way.
- thecrazyone 9y ago
  thank you for espousing the free markets ideology (I concur with you). I don't know why but these days, I feel HN also has become protectionist (where I'd have expected free marketeers). Perhaps this is out of context, but I wonder if Trump is a symptom of this protectionism or if they're unrelated

justlearning123 9y ago

There are only two countries which have homegrown companies protected by their governments. OP's comment still holds true about US companies not necessarily being good for everyone.

tripzilch 9y ago

The alternative of all the data siloed to a single world power, the US, is not better. I was going to add ".. unless you're American", but I'm not even sure if such a concentration of power would be a net neutral (or good) in the long run, for any citizen, US or elsewhere.