8 ms·

Wow, I'm genuinely surprised someone managed to spin something like Google advocating for a secure web into a monopoly agenda. I get it, corporations are evil.

by adtac 9y ago

Wow, I'm genuinely surprised someone managed to spin something like Google advocating for a secure web into a monopoly agenda. I get it, corporations are evil. But not every move. Why can't this simply be something out of goodwill?

josteink 9y ago
> I'm genuinely surprised someone managed to spin something like Google advocating for a secure web into a monopoly agenda You are surprised to see people expecting more monopolistic behavior from the biggest monopolist on the web? I have bridges for you.
- wpietri 9y ago
  I don't think this needs to be seen as a monopoly move. Think of it instead like health inspections for restaurants. In theory, restaurateurs would hate health inspections, because they're intrusive regulation with no direct benefit. But they have a lot of indirect benefit, in that the safer people feel going to restaurants, the more likely they are to go out to eat. Similarly, the safer the web is, the better off Google is, because people do more things on the web. That does benefit them, sure, but I don't think it benefits them disproportionately, let alone harms other legitimate competitors.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    Source on people eat out more when there are health inspections? I've lived and traveled to many countries where there are no meaningful food inspections whatsoever, and your statement there really does not pass the sniff test. And as an aside there also tend to be far more independent restaurants since if you can cook something well, then all you need do is plop out a table, put up a sign, and you're in business.
    - wpietri 9y ago
      I think a cross-country comparison clouds the issue. Think of it this way: if in an American city people started to frequently get sick from poor restaurant hygiene, would you expect them to eat out more, less, or the same? Would you expect them to be more or less willing to try restaurants new to them? My strong bet is on less for both, because people are pretty risk-averse when it comes to vomiting. The US is in a very long restaurant boom: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/its-the-golden-age-of-restaurants-in-america/530955/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/its-the... And I don't think it's an accident that goes along with a large decline in food-borne illness rates: https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pdfs/FoodNet-Annual-Report-2015-508c.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pdfs/FoodNet-Annual-Report-2015-...
      - indubitable 9y ago
        This is an interesting conversation to have as I used to feel very similarly, until getting to experience a nation where there are really no rules or regulations on food at all. It's actually what started reshaping my general view towards regulations in general. Think about the implication of your statement/belief. You're implying that the primary reason restaurants aren't making people sick, en masse, is because of rules and regulations. The restaurant industry is one place where self regulation works surprisingly well. Think about your own experience, as it's true for just about everybody. When you choose to go out you most often go to one of a handful of the same restaurants. What happens if you get sick at a place? You're probably not going back there. And you're also probably going to tell your friends. If you're particularly upset you might even post some less than friendly reviews of the restaurant. That restaurant, with one mistake, converts a high value customer into a one man image destruction machine. And now let's imagine it wasn't a one off, but this restaurant actually makes a significant number of people sick - even if on just one a single day. They're pretty much dead. All the rules and regulations make it much harder for people to start new restaurants. In most states you're looking at several permits and associated educational courses just to be able to even call yourself a restaurant. And then don't forget to fact in the fees for the permits, the fees for the classes, and plenty of more fees on top of that. Basically you end up having to pay the government a whole lot of money just to be able to sell the food you've probably already been making your friends and family for years if not decades. And this leads to utterly ridiculous scenes like this [1]. How dare a man try to sell some hotdogs without asking the government for permission. Time to take all the money out of his wallet, fine him, and probably schedule a court date too. By contrast, you can be completely certain that 100% of McDonald's franchises have every single government fee and permit covered inside out. But that does little to stop people ending up with their food being mishandled, and in some cases intentionally. The big thing you'll see in industries with heavy regulation is a trends towards centralization. Here [2] are some actual data on this 'golden age of restaurants', though the ridiculous number of chains itself is more indicative of the issue than a recent slump. [1] - https://streamable.com/3dvge https://streamable.com/3dvge [2] - https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2017/are-independent-restaurants-growing-in-the-us-it-all-depends/ https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/20...
nightski 9y ago
It's simple. This is hacker news. I'd guess in general audience prefers control over decisions being made for them whether for better or worse.
indubitable 9y ago
They just engaged in an action that substantially increases their monopoly over access to user information, which is their golden goose. And this action is going to result in some degree of backlash. People hosting information only static sites aren't going to be thrilled that Google is effectively coercing them into, at the minimum, setting up let's encrypt when they have no reason to do so. And of course, this can be seen through some lens as benefiting the public good. Do you really think Occam's Razor points to the second reason as the primary incentive? Another example from Google would be them preventing you from running plugins on Chrome that were not from the Google store. Yeah, it can be spun to be about protecting users from malicious plugins but it also enhances their control over their users. Incidentally, they decided to ban evil things like Youtube Downloaders from their store as well, which is a far more impactful given their increased level of control 'for your safety.'

by adtac 9y ago

josteink 9y ago

> I'm genuinely surprised someone managed to spin something like Google advocating for a secure web into a monopoly agenda You are surprised to see people expecting more monopolistic behavior from the biggest monopolist on the web? I have bridges for you.

wpietri 9y ago
I don't think this needs to be seen as a monopoly move. Think of it instead like health inspections for restaurants. In theory, restaurateurs would hate health inspections, because they're intrusive regulation with no direct benefit. But they have a lot of indirect benefit, in that the safer people feel going to restaurants, the more likely they are to go out to eat. Similarly, the safer the web is, the better off Google is, because people do more things on the web. That does benefit them, sure, but I don't think it benefits them disproportionately, let alone harms other legitimate competitors.
- indubitable 9y ago
  Source on people eat out more when there are health inspections? I've lived and traveled to many countries where there are no meaningful food inspections whatsoever, and your statement there really does not pass the sniff test. And as an aside there also tend to be far more independent restaurants since if you can cook something well, then all you need do is plop out a table, put up a sign, and you're in business.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    I think a cross-country comparison clouds the issue. Think of it this way: if in an American city people started to frequently get sick from poor restaurant hygiene, would you expect them to eat out more, less, or the same? Would you expect them to be more or less willing to try restaurants new to them? My strong bet is on less for both, because people are pretty risk-averse when it comes to vomiting. The US is in a very long restaurant boom: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/its-the-golden-age-of-restaurants-in-america/530955/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/its-the... And I don't think it's an accident that goes along with a large decline in food-borne illness rates: https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pdfs/FoodNet-Annual-Report-2015-508c.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pdfs/FoodNet-Annual-Report-2015-...
    - indubitable 9y ago
      This is an interesting conversation to have as I used to feel very similarly, until getting to experience a nation where there are really no rules or regulations on food at all. It's actually what started reshaping my general view towards regulations in general. Think about the implication of your statement/belief. You're implying that the primary reason restaurants aren't making people sick, en masse, is because of rules and regulations. The restaurant industry is one place where self regulation works surprisingly well. Think about your own experience, as it's true for just about everybody. When you choose to go out you most often go to one of a handful of the same restaurants. What happens if you get sick at a place? You're probably not going back there. And you're also probably going to tell your friends. If you're particularly upset you might even post some less than friendly reviews of the restaurant. That restaurant, with one mistake, converts a high value customer into a one man image destruction machine. And now let's imagine it wasn't a one off, but this restaurant actually makes a significant number of people sick - even if on just one a single day. They're pretty much dead. All the rules and regulations make it much harder for people to start new restaurants. In most states you're looking at several permits and associated educational courses just to be able to even call yourself a restaurant. And then don't forget to fact in the fees for the permits, the fees for the classes, and plenty of more fees on top of that. Basically you end up having to pay the government a whole lot of money just to be able to sell the food you've probably already been making your friends and family for years if not decades. And this leads to utterly ridiculous scenes like this [1]. How dare a man try to sell some hotdogs without asking the government for permission. Time to take all the money out of his wallet, fine him, and probably schedule a court date too. By contrast, you can be completely certain that 100% of McDonald's franchises have every single government fee and permit covered inside out. But that does little to stop people ending up with their food being mishandled, and in some cases intentionally. The big thing you'll see in industries with heavy regulation is a trends towards centralization. Here [2] are some actual data on this 'golden age of restaurants', though the ridiculous number of chains itself is more indicative of the issue than a recent slump. [1] - https://streamable.com/3dvge https://streamable.com/3dvge [2] - https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2017/are-independent-restaurants-growing-in-the-us-it-all-depends/ https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/20...

nightski 9y ago

It's simple. This is hacker news. I'd guess in general audience prefers control over decisions being made for them whether for better or worse.

indubitable 9y ago

They just engaged in an action that substantially increases their monopoly over access to user information, which is their golden goose. And this action is going to result in some degree of backlash. People hosting information only static sites aren't going to be thrilled that Google is effectively coercing them into, at the minimum, setting up let's encrypt when they have no reason to do so. And of course, this can be seen through some lens as benefiting the public good. Do you really think Occam's Razor points to the second reason as the primary incentive? Another example from Google would be them preventing you from running plugins on Chrome that were not from the Google store. Yeah, it can be spun to be about protecting users from malicious plugins but it also enhances their control over their users. Incidentally, they decided to ban evil things like Youtube Downloaders from their store as well, which is a far more impactful given their increased level of control 'for your safety.'