4 ms·

I would rather solutions to large concentrations of tech power not come from above, in the way of government further expanding its control over the private sphe

I would rather solutions to large concentrations of tech power not come from above, in the way of government further expanding its control over the private sphere, but from below, via technological innovation in the form of distributed technologies like blockchains.

stevenwoo 9y ago
What would you consider an example of a monopoly being broken by the market rather than government intervention?
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  Android breaking Windows' monopoly on operating systems. It did so largely by eclipsing the desktop computer by facilitating the creation of a new mode of personal computing. One could argue that TCP/IP and web standards like HTTP and HTML similarly made the desktop and its associated software (operating system, productivity suites, etc) less relevant, by increasing the ability of desktop users to access computing resources served by machines running different operating systems (e.g. a Linux server).
  - croon 9y ago
    So what you're saying is that you can't break a monopoly through market forces, but merely wait out the monopoly market's relevance?
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      You can make the monopoly less relevant or irrelevant by superseding its market. Maybe saying that's a case of "breaking the monopoly" is a stretch, but the point is it's a valid solution to the problems of a monopoly, which emanate from the market and financial power its controller wields.
- petre 9y ago
  Politicians are already in the pockets of monopolies, that's why. Look at Microsoft: their monopoly on the desktop was broken by the rise of mobile, so clearly by market forces. Monopolies just get replaced by other monopolies.
lumberjack 9y ago
Not arguing about the politics, but there is no viable economic and/or technological strategy to compete against Facebook/Google from below. People have been trying for more than a decade already.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
I'd rather that too, but it is quite likely impossible. Technological innovation unleashed on the free market is what caused this. Monopoly is a natural end-goal of a company, and it's the usual job of governments to prevent companies from achieving that goal. (Also, I don't think governments need to approach this problem by expanding scope of their control; they could use the control they already have. Just break up too big companies, and the next time someone gets this large, break them up too. No need for extra special regulations.) The only way blockchains can be effective at combating large concentrations of tech power is by cooking the planet, so there's no more technological civilization, and quite probably, also no more humans. I just can't see why the one technology that has unbounded energy waste problems and is primarily used for get-rich-quick schemes is also seen as a feasible way to solve societal problems.
- haydenmk2 9y ago
  > I just can't see why the one technology that has unbounded energy waste problems and is primarily used for get-rich-quick schemes is also seen as a feasible way to solve societal problems. I see where you're coming from, but cryptocurrencies are not the only use of blockchain. That's a shame that bitcoin throws such a big shadow over everything else.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Do you have any resources on blockchains-but-without-cryptocurrency-applications? I'd love to read them to rebalance my perspective. If, as you say, there is something worthwhile under the shadow of Bitcoin, I feel it really needs get itself a PR flashlight.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  These technologies broke up arguably worse monopolies, over information (Google democraticizing access to information) and media (Facebook and other social media companies breaking the hold that mass media had over people's opinions by giving them an avenue to directly communicate). I think people forget how bad the mass media situation was. We had a handful of companies disseminate one way broadcasting to the entire population. The audience were passive viewers whose choices in programming were extremely limited, and who had very little ability to participate in the creation and curation of the media content. So I don't think it's clear that the market, left to its own devices, doesn't evolve toward the direction of greater personal autonomy and empowerment, and it's certainly not clear that it doesn't have the potential to. >>Monopoly is a natural end-goal of a company, and it's the usual job of governments to prevent companies from achieving that goal. Bottom up switch over to open source is a viable market solution to market monopolies. If Android or Linux become the market standard in OSs for example, that is not a proprietary monopoly that gives one group control over the OS.

stevenwoo 9y ago

What would you consider an example of a monopoly being broken by the market rather than government intervention?

CryptoPunk 9y ago
Android breaking Windows' monopoly on operating systems. It did so largely by eclipsing the desktop computer by facilitating the creation of a new mode of personal computing. One could argue that TCP/IP and web standards like HTTP and HTML similarly made the desktop and its associated software (operating system, productivity suites, etc) less relevant, by increasing the ability of desktop users to access computing resources served by machines running different operating systems (e.g. a Linux server).
- croon 9y ago
  So what you're saying is that you can't break a monopoly through market forces, but merely wait out the monopoly market's relevance?
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    You can make the monopoly less relevant or irrelevant by superseding its market. Maybe saying that's a case of "breaking the monopoly" is a stretch, but the point is it's a valid solution to the problems of a monopoly, which emanate from the market and financial power its controller wields.
petre 9y ago
Politicians are already in the pockets of monopolies, that's why. Look at Microsoft: their monopoly on the desktop was broken by the rise of mobile, so clearly by market forces. Monopolies just get replaced by other monopolies.

lumberjack 9y ago

Not arguing about the politics, but there is no viable economic and/or technological strategy to compete against Facebook/Google from below. People have been trying for more than a decade already.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

I'd rather that too, but it is quite likely impossible. Technological innovation unleashed on the free market is what caused this. Monopoly is a natural end-goal of a company, and it's the usual job of governments to prevent companies from achieving that goal. (Also, I don't think governments need to approach this problem by expanding scope of their control; they could use the control they already have. Just break up too big companies, and the next time someone gets this large, break them up too. No need for extra special regulations.) The only way blockchains can be effective at combating large concentrations of tech power is by cooking the planet, so there's no more technological civilization, and quite probably, also no more humans. I just can't see why the one technology that has unbounded energy waste problems and is primarily used for get-rich-quick schemes is also seen as a feasible way to solve societal problems.

haydenmk2 9y ago
> I just can't see why the one technology that has unbounded energy waste problems and is primarily used for get-rich-quick schemes is also seen as a feasible way to solve societal problems. I see where you're coming from, but cryptocurrencies are not the only use of blockchain. That's a shame that bitcoin throws such a big shadow over everything else.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Do you have any resources on blockchains-but-without-cryptocurrency-applications? I'd love to read them to rebalance my perspective. If, as you say, there is something worthwhile under the shadow of Bitcoin, I feel it really needs get itself a PR flashlight.
CryptoPunk 9y ago
These technologies broke up arguably worse monopolies, over information (Google democraticizing access to information) and media (Facebook and other social media companies breaking the hold that mass media had over people's opinions by giving them an avenue to directly communicate). I think people forget how bad the mass media situation was. We had a handful of companies disseminate one way broadcasting to the entire population. The audience were passive viewers whose choices in programming were extremely limited, and who had very little ability to participate in the creation and curation of the media content. So I don't think it's clear that the market, left to its own devices, doesn't evolve toward the direction of greater personal autonomy and empowerment, and it's certainly not clear that it doesn't have the potential to. >>Monopoly is a natural end-goal of a company, and it's the usual job of governments to prevent companies from achieving that goal. Bottom up switch over to open source is a viable market solution to market monopolies. If Android or Linux become the market standard in OSs for example, that is not a proprietary monopoly that gives one group control over the OS.