8 ms·

> if you're going to regulate, should these companies be at the top of your list Yes. Two of them (Google and Facebook) basically control a huge fraction of t

> if you're going to regulate, should these companies be at the top of your list Yes. Two of them (Google and Facebook) basically control a huge fraction of the information people are exposed to on a daily basis, either directly on indirectly. They're so dominant and aloof, that they can make or break businesses without even realizing it or caring. Their control over information flow also has important civil society implications. Amazon could conceivably control most American retail activity in the future, though it has a few retail titans that could conceivably stand up to it if they get their acts together [1]. At best, we seem to be headed towards a retail oligopoly. Personally, I'm much less worried about Apple, its control is much less pervasive. Though I wish there were more alternatives to it other than Android. [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/01/amazon-is-dominating-the-entire-retail-industry.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/01/amazon-is-...

buchanaf 9y ago
Could you elaborate on their aloofness? What exactly do you hope to achieve by regulating them? They seem to take the privacy of their users far more seriously than other competitors as well as the government (US - net neutrality).
- mulmen 9y ago
  What does net neutrality have to do with privacy?
  - buchanaf 9y ago
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15258230/net-neutrality-privacy-ajit-pai-fcc https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15258230/net-neutrality-p...
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > Could you elaborate on their aloofness? For Google: If your site gets incorrectly fucked over by one of Google's ranking algorithm changes, try to find someone to talk to who cares enough to try to fix the issue. Ditto if your Gmail account gets wrongly flagged and closed for some reason. There's no one for you to call and you're fucked, unless you happen know someone inside Google. Neither of these have happened to me personally, but I've followed cases of each pretty closely. For Facebook: It's recent newsfeed changes have had a huge detrimental impact on legitimate news organizations, even more in some foreign markets than int the US. See how much Facebook cares. > What exactly do you hope to achieve by regulating them? The standard stuff, like elimination of unfair competition (e.g. Google using Search to push its other stuff). I'd also like to see some breakups/forced divestitures to increase overall competition. In Facebook's case, specifically: I'd like to see Instagram and Whatsapp spun off; and the core Facebook social network decentralized into several independent instances, with mandates to conform to open interoperability standards. Those standards should include a mandatory privacy permissioning system, to control how personal data is used across instance boundaries.
wpasc 9y ago
Yes, they do both control a lot of information that people see, BUT Facebook already changed their news feed algorithm and many tech companies are making changes. Not saying they're doing it perfectly or even well, but still. On the other hand Tobacco companies for years lied about the risks and promoted false science Energy companies regularly fund climate change denial organizations (see Heartland Institute) Monsanto sends detectives after farmers who get tangled with them (https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farmerssued.php https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farme...) Tyson, Purdue regularly keep chicken farmers in poverty and silenced about chicken farming conditions. Volkswagen created emission cheating software to hide their emissions... Again, tech companies aren't great and control a lot of information, but what about the food we eat and the air we breathe?
- Tyrek 9y ago
  While I do agree that all these areas need regulatory improvements, I feel like you're falling into the what-about-ism trap. I personally feel like increased regulatory scrutiny about tech companies (i.e. regulating information) would be a strong first step in allowing society to then regulate the other industries that you mentioned.
  - wpasc 9y ago
    I think you make a good point about what-about-ism. Unfortunately, the attention of regulators, the U.S. government, and the media is a rival good and areas of focus are definitely mutually exclusive. It's a sad fact of the national attention span, but still likely a fact.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Every one of those other companies is incredibly heavily regulated. >Tobacco companies for years lied about the risks and promoted false science And were punished severely, rightly so. They paid out billions. >Energy companies regularly fund climate change denial organizations (see Heartland Institute) This is difficult to solve within the existing legal infrastructure and might require a constitutional amendment >Monsanto sends detectives after farmers who get tangled with them (https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farme... https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farme...) I'm not sure that should be illegal - they sued the farmers and lawyers use investigators. >Tyson, Purdue regularly keep chicken farmers in poverty and silenced about chicken farming conditions. This should be more regulated and there are serious calls to do so. >Volkswagen created emission cheating software to hide their emissions... And are now paying billions for it.
redial 9y ago
> Amazon could conceivably control most American retail activity in the future, though it has a few retail titans that could conceivably stand up to it if they get their acts together [1]. At best, we seem to be headed towards a retail oligopoly. Isn't that precrime?
- exit 9y ago
  no, it's reasonable foresight and concern for our collective future condition
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
djsumdog 9y ago
There's a problem in the UK where people get splashed with acid. A UK kid made a prank out of it (using water instead to scare them) .. and Google banned his entire YouTube channel. Was what he did stupid? Oh absolutely. Maybe he needed to be taught a lesson .. but now his entire channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers is gone, and so is the ad revenue .. and all the videos/content. Because of the dependence on that platform, Google can kill anything they deem unworthy. You could say, "Well so could television companies, or Netflix/Amazon Video," but you typically enter in a contract with those companies, and there's some degree of oversight on the content. Here people are giving YouTube their content, and then monetizing it only if/after they get popular.
- ori_b 9y ago
  > Was what he did stupid? Oh absolutely. Maybe he needed to be taught a lesson .. but now his entire channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers is gone, and so is the ad revenue .. and all the videos/content. Do you believe that the government would be more or less ok with allowing controversial content like that? I suspect that government regulation would make this problem worse, not better.
  - stevenicr 9y ago
    Depends on which govt. I am no expert, but being a news junky the past few years I would think that Germany may side with censoring, and I would hope that the US would push for free speech above all else. The UK is looking at pushing google, visa/mc, and ISPs to choke anything sexually arousing online and then forcing blocks nationwide. Getting rid of religious stuff has been interesting the past couple of years. I am looking forward to more routers like the disney router to make these choices easier for households, and less about the portals relaying info posted by others. At the same time people should have easy access to unfiltered net as well. Too many groups pushing to censor millions of minds here and there. Govt could make it better, and of course they could make it worse. Can tech really give those choices to the adults to make for themselves?
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    >> Was what he did stupid? Oh absolutely. Maybe he needed to be taught a lesson .. but now his entire channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers is gone, and so is the ad revenue .. and all the videos/content. > Do you believe that the government would be more or less ok with allowing controversial content like that? I suspect that government regulation would make this problem worse, not better. In the US, the government would absolutely be OK with it. Protection of speech from government interference is one of the most fundamental and sacred cornerstones of US law.
krapp 9y ago
Having political or cultural influence, or holding market dominance aren't crimes in a capitalist economy. Those aren't valid reasons to "regulate" the success out of those companies.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  What is?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 9y ago
    I don't know. But I feel like the assumption here is that these companies are harmful merely because of their size and influence, which I understand, but don't believe is necessarily true. Or at least not true enough to write laws about.
    - Karrot_Kream 9y ago
      One of the arguments is that companies that are too large stifle innovation. The author claims that our current crop of companies came about because of Microsoft anti-trust legislation. Do you not think this is true?
      - krapp 9y ago
        >One of the arguments is that companies that are too large stifle innovation. They might, but is "innovation" something that should be enforced by law? Do companies have a right to expect equal access to a market regardless of the successes or advantages of their competitors?
        Apocryphon 9y ago
        Isn't that the entire point of antitrust?
sangnoir 9y ago
> Two of them (Google and Facebook) basically control a huge fraction of the information people are exposed to on a daily basis, either directly on indirectly. I think CNN, NBC ("beauty of our weapons") and Fox news control a bigger fraction, but nobody's clamoring for them to be regulated. I wonder why it's just the upstarts being targeted.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Those already are news companies and are already subject to the regulation for news companies Google and Facebook refuse to be acknowledged as such

buchanaf 9y ago

Could you elaborate on their aloofness? What exactly do you hope to achieve by regulating them? They seem to take the privacy of their users far more seriously than other competitors as well as the government (US - net neutrality).

mulmen 9y ago
What does net neutrality have to do with privacy?
- buchanaf 9y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15258230/net-neutrality-privacy-ajit-pai-fcc https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15258230/net-neutrality-p...
Slansitartop 9y ago
> Could you elaborate on their aloofness? For Google: If your site gets incorrectly fucked over by one of Google's ranking algorithm changes, try to find someone to talk to who cares enough to try to fix the issue. Ditto if your Gmail account gets wrongly flagged and closed for some reason. There's no one for you to call and you're fucked, unless you happen know someone inside Google. Neither of these have happened to me personally, but I've followed cases of each pretty closely. For Facebook: It's recent newsfeed changes have had a huge detrimental impact on legitimate news organizations, even more in some foreign markets than int the US. See how much Facebook cares. > What exactly do you hope to achieve by regulating them? The standard stuff, like elimination of unfair competition (e.g. Google using Search to push its other stuff). I'd also like to see some breakups/forced divestitures to increase overall competition. In Facebook's case, specifically: I'd like to see Instagram and Whatsapp spun off; and the core Facebook social network decentralized into several independent instances, with mandates to conform to open interoperability standards. Those standards should include a mandatory privacy permissioning system, to control how personal data is used across instance boundaries.

wpasc 9y ago

Yes, they do both control a lot of information that people see, BUT Facebook already changed their news feed algorithm and many tech companies are making changes. Not saying they're doing it perfectly or even well, but still. On the other hand Tobacco companies for years lied about the risks and promoted false science Energy companies regularly fund climate change denial organizations (see Heartland Institute) Monsanto sends detectives after farmers who get tangled with them (https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farmerssued.php https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farme...) Tyson, Purdue regularly keep chicken farmers in poverty and silenced about chicken farming conditions. Volkswagen created emission cheating software to hide their emissions... Again, tech companies aren't great and control a lot of information, but what about the food we eat and the air we breathe?

Tyrek 9y ago
While I do agree that all these areas need regulatory improvements, I feel like you're falling into the what-about-ism trap. I personally feel like increased regulatory scrutiny about tech companies (i.e. regulating information) would be a strong first step in allowing society to then regulate the other industries that you mentioned.
- wpasc 9y ago
  I think you make a good point about what-about-ism. Unfortunately, the attention of regulators, the U.S. government, and the media is a rival good and areas of focus are definitely mutually exclusive. It's a sad fact of the national attention span, but still likely a fact.
ameister14 9y ago
Every one of those other companies is incredibly heavily regulated. >Tobacco companies for years lied about the risks and promoted false science And were punished severely, rightly so. They paid out billions. >Energy companies regularly fund climate change denial organizations (see Heartland Institute) This is difficult to solve within the existing legal infrastructure and might require a constitutional amendment >Monsanto sends detectives after farmers who get tangled with them (https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farme... https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/Monsanto/farme...) I'm not sure that should be illegal - they sued the farmers and lawyers use investigators. >Tyson, Purdue regularly keep chicken farmers in poverty and silenced about chicken farming conditions. This should be more regulated and there are serious calls to do so. >Volkswagen created emission cheating software to hide their emissions... And are now paying billions for it.

redial 9y ago

> Amazon could conceivably control most American retail activity in the future, though it has a few retail titans that could conceivably stand up to it if they get their acts together [1]. At best, we seem to be headed towards a retail oligopoly. Isn't that precrime?

exit 9y ago
no, it's reasonable foresight and concern for our collective future condition

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

djsumdog 9y ago

There's a problem in the UK where people get splashed with acid. A UK kid made a prank out of it (using water instead to scare them) .. and Google banned his entire YouTube channel. Was what he did stupid? Oh absolutely. Maybe he needed to be taught a lesson .. but now his entire channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers is gone, and so is the ad revenue .. and all the videos/content. Because of the dependence on that platform, Google can kill anything they deem unworthy. You could say, "Well so could television companies, or Netflix/Amazon Video," but you typically enter in a contract with those companies, and there's some degree of oversight on the content. Here people are giving YouTube their content, and then monetizing it only if/after they get popular.

ori_b 9y ago
> Was what he did stupid? Oh absolutely. Maybe he needed to be taught a lesson .. but now his entire channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers is gone, and so is the ad revenue .. and all the videos/content. Do you believe that the government would be more or less ok with allowing controversial content like that? I suspect that government regulation would make this problem worse, not better.
- stevenicr 9y ago
  Depends on which govt. I am no expert, but being a news junky the past few years I would think that Germany may side with censoring, and I would hope that the US would push for free speech above all else. The UK is looking at pushing google, visa/mc, and ISPs to choke anything sexually arousing online and then forcing blocks nationwide. Getting rid of religious stuff has been interesting the past couple of years. I am looking forward to more routers like the disney router to make these choices easier for households, and less about the portals relaying info posted by others. At the same time people should have easy access to unfiltered net as well. Too many groups pushing to censor millions of minds here and there. Govt could make it better, and of course they could make it worse. Can tech really give those choices to the adults to make for themselves?
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  >> Was what he did stupid? Oh absolutely. Maybe he needed to be taught a lesson .. but now his entire channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers is gone, and so is the ad revenue .. and all the videos/content. > Do you believe that the government would be more or less ok with allowing controversial content like that? I suspect that government regulation would make this problem worse, not better. In the US, the government would absolutely be OK with it. Protection of speech from government interference is one of the most fundamental and sacred cornerstones of US law.

krapp 9y ago

Having political or cultural influence, or holding market dominance aren't crimes in a capitalist economy. Those aren't valid reasons to "regulate" the success out of those companies.

Karrot_Kream 9y ago
What is?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 9y ago
  I don't know. But I feel like the assumption here is that these companies are harmful merely because of their size and influence, which I understand, but don't believe is necessarily true. Or at least not true enough to write laws about.
  - Karrot_Kream 9y ago
    One of the arguments is that companies that are too large stifle innovation. The author claims that our current crop of companies came about because of Microsoft anti-trust legislation. Do you not think this is true?
    - krapp 9y ago
      >One of the arguments is that companies that are too large stifle innovation. They might, but is "innovation" something that should be enforced by law? Do companies have a right to expect equal access to a market regardless of the successes or advantages of their competitors?
      - Apocryphon 9y ago
        Isn't that the entire point of antitrust?

sangnoir 9y ago

> Two of them (Google and Facebook) basically control a huge fraction of the information people are exposed to on a daily basis, either directly on indirectly. I think CNN, NBC ("beauty of our weapons") and Fox news control a bigger fraction, but nobody's clamoring for them to be regulated. I wonder why it's just the upstarts being targeted.

walterstucco 9y ago
Those already are news companies and are already subject to the regulation for news companies Google and Facebook refuse to be acknowledged as such