8 ms·

> collective action... the best form of which is bounded by the popular will This notion is dangerous. Popular will brings fascism, authoritarianism, discrimin

by jl2718 9y ago

> collective action... the best form of which is bounded by the popular will This notion is dangerous. Popular will brings fascism, authoritarianism, discrimination, instability, and uncertainty. Popular will is not and never has been a sustainable form of authority. Political economists have a term, ‘institutions’ to describe sustainable forms of authority, like laws, morality, family structure, culture, language, literacy, technical education, career stability, and pedagogy. Institutions like “don’t be evil”, and “we will never sell your data”, are the entire reason why the current batch of tech earned enough trust to exist at all. “Do the right thing”, and “bring people together”, however nice they sound, appear to be easily manipulated by popular will, which will be either their downfall, or ours.

mattnewport 9y ago
I think he's saying something different in this context: that the reason democracies are generally the least bad forms of government is that they are bounded by the popular will, that is the consent of the governed puts limits on the exercise of power. He's not advocating for the tyranny of the majority, rather saying that the power of Google and Facebook is particularly dangerous because it is not constrained or bounded in the way that a democratic government's power is bounded. I think you make a good point about institutions though. In practice they may be more important on a day to day basis than the popular will in placing constraints on government power.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I really love how you described this. Democracies run on their institutions, but are held together by the bounds the popular will sets on power.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  But Google and Facebook are constrained and bounded by the popular will of the users.
  - imartin2k 9y ago
    At least when it comes to Facebook, for a significant number of people, participation in Facebook is not an actual choice. It's similarly to living without electricity: Yes, you could do it, but the costs are too large to actually do it in practice. It's still freedom of choice on paper (because no one points a gun at people and forces them to use Facebook), but not in practice. This is maybe one of Facebook's most crucial achievements: It has turned itself into something which people feel they cannot live without, even if they might hate it. Google is a bit different story. Living without Google is doable with some but not gigantic sacrifices.
    - pmiller2 9y ago
      I think that's overstating it. Who literally needs Facebook as much as electricity? I'm saying this as someone who has a Facebook account, but never logs in to it or posts anything.
      - macintux 9y ago
        It's certainly overstating it, but take this example from my own life. My step-sister spent years fighting cancer. I knew this, and would talk to her occasionally, but I wouldn't find out about significant events until after the fact. As soon as I surrendered and finally joined Facebook, I discovered she was in the hospital again, and was able to go visit and spend some quality time with her. As it turned out, it was the best conversation we ever had, the most time I spent 1:1 with her before she passed away. Are there other ways of keeping in touch with family? Sure. Once your family is invested in using Facebook, however, that's where you have to be to know what's going on all the time. I dislike Facebook, and look forward to getting rid of it. I cannot, however, dismiss the unique value it offers.
        a1369209993 9y ago
        That's not value that it offers; that's value that it takes away from you by displacing better means of communication and then holds for ransom.
- ewzimm 9y ago
  This is a good point. Sustainable growth requires a balance of power, which is why things have developed in this direction. Collective action at large scale has traditionally been controlled by governments. The most successful governments are bounded by popular will, which is directed by institutions, which are informed by traditions that have developed from previous successes and failures. Disruptive innovation requires disturbing some part of that chain of influence. Microsoft and Apple have found success mostly by providing tools to people who exist in established parts of that chain. Google and Facebook and many other current-generation startups are more likely to use the power of collective action to create feedback loops where collective action directly informs further collective action with limited checks and balances. This sometimes leads to imbalances which spark mass outrage over policies that do not fit into people's concepts of how things ought to work. Is this kind of power sustainable? It's likely to follow a more volatile path of quick growth followed by outrage over the outcomes that make people uncomfortable, but it might find equilibrium regardless, as it still has to exist in the world that was formed by traditional institutions.
- siruncledrew 9y ago
  In reality, Google and Facebook grow more unbounded, as they continually use their power($) to buy more companies and become more horizontally-integrated organizations to add to their business models. This by proxy also absorbs the members/users of those other companies and brings them under their corporate umbrellas. It would be like if the U.S. decided it would be good for them to own the entire Caribbean in addition to Puerto Rico, so they acquired all the islands (through power or other means) and then those citizens became some sort of pseudo-citizens of the U.S. as a result.
  - dfmooreqqq 9y ago
    Which, in reality, the US did do with manifest destiny... Deciding to get the whole space from sea to shining sea...
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    Isn’t this just the story of all corporations though? They start selling a niche product, and then they have three axes for growth: vertical, horizontal, and addressable market. All corporations take “breaths” on each of these axes as they see opportunities. But a corporation that grows too wide finds a more focused competitor stealing their share. A company that grows too tall sees a competitor using network effects against them. Growing the addressable market generally lifts all ships, but hits a limit once you max out global marketing. Every company will eventually flex as far as they can on all these axes. I’m interested if you have some insight about something that makes Google particularly dangerous in the horizontal direction?
andrepd 9y ago
Can you elaborate how popular will brings authoritarianism? Seems like a complete non-sequitur.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  For instance, through supporting the most charismatic leader up to the point he gains enough power that not supporting him becomes dangerous.
- ryanobjc 9y ago
  Tyranny of the majority is a well known concept in political science. For example, initially the civil rights movement (both the civil war era, and the 1960s) and laws was quite unpopular. From a certain point of view, they were strong armed thru by activist judges and politicians who were violating the popular will.
  - msla 9y ago
    > From a certain point of view, they were strong armed thru by activist judges and politicians who were violating the popular will. Not just "from a certain point of view", Obi-Wan: The whole point of a constitutional system is to check the majority, to say that some laws are impermissible, no matter how much the majority wants them, because they violate some principle we regard as more important than majority rule.
    - kolpa 9y ago
      But who is the "we" in this regard?
      - roenxi 9y ago
        Still the majority of the population, as it happens. If serious percentages (say, 60%) of a democracy want something enough that they make it a voting issue, it'll happen eventually. You'll get a candidate who is happy to do 'everything the other guy would do + X'. The big thing with constitutional changes is that they will normally require serious unity amongst the population, most of whom will likely by default agree with the constitution. The majority isn't greedy and evil, they just don't put up much of a fight when the politicians 'misunderstand' and implement policy that favours the majority without accepting the damage to a minority. There are a lot of policies like that, and in many cases one suspects the politicians know exactly what they are doing but the public is intellectually lazy.
fredch 9y ago
The author is obviously alluding to democracy.
kolpa 9y ago
Please explain the difference between “don’t be evil” and “Do the right thing”.
- kingbirdy 9y ago
  It's easier to agree on what's evil than what's right
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- glabula 9y ago
  ”do the right thing” requires taking action “Don’t be evil” can be achieved passively For example, if you spend all day watching TV you probably haven’t done evil, but you probably also haven’t done anything ‘right’ Right and evil are both words with a lot subjective meaning
vertexFarm 9y ago
Yeah, a pure democracy would be an absolute shithole. You don't want to live in a world where people's reddit votes determine every action of state, from legislation to foreign policy and war to incarceration. Kind of like that episode of The Orville.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> Popular will is not and never has been a sustainable form of authority. This is a strange claim. It could mean a number of things, but the senses in which it is defensible seem like stretches. Popular will brings fascism and authoritarianism because it is a source of authority. It has been the well-documented foundation of extremely powerful dictators going back to the ancient Greek tyrants. It was the basis of Julius Caesar's authority, and while it proved unsustainable for him, it was also crucially important for the emperors that followed him for the next few hundred years. At the other end of history, it has been a bedrock of the authority of recent dictators in Germany, Italy, Latin America, China, Russia, Africa, Korea, etc. etc. etc. etc. You could make the argument that governmental authority, over the course of centuries, doesn't generally derive directly from the popular will. But there are three problems with that argument: first, people generally don't care about whether the popular will 300 years from now will endorse the institutions of today. Second, while it is true that governmental authority over long periods does not derive from the popular will, it is always pretty harshly constrained by it. Third, religious organizations routinely do derive substantial authority solely from popular support, and they do this for many centuries at a time.
s2g 9y ago
> Institutions like “don’t be evil” Google is evil. Maybe they weren't at some point, but they absolutely are now.
qntty 9y ago
How do you have democracy without popular will?
pdonis 9y ago
> Institutions like “don’t be evil”, and “we will never sell your data”, are the entire reason why the current batch of tech earned enough trust to exist at all. And then, once they had earned our trust, they broke those institutions. So if they are the only alternative to "popular will", then it looks like we're screwed.
throw2016 9y ago
This is a very american centric perspective due to decades of propaganda by libertarians who want to set up an artificial divide between government and people. See 'Democracy in Chains' by Nancy Maclean. The government is you in a democracy, it's there to protect your and everyone else's interests, that what democracy and rule of law means. It's what guarantees a somewhat civilized society. It is not this simplistic 'majority can do what they want' illiteracy spread by market fundamentalists. Markets have existed for thousands of years, it did not lead to any civilization then and cannot now. Discrimination, segregation, slavery, plunder and exploitation are the result of uncontrolled capitalism and free markets, not democracy and 'popular will'. Anyone who knows history and human greed understands this instinctively. It appears some people become rich and increasingly alienated from people, society and government and begin to believe they don't need government. This is the kind of hubris that leads to tyranny and quasi feudalism, which is of course what they want.

by jl2718 9y ago

mattnewport 9y ago

I think he's saying something different in this context: that the reason democracies are generally the least bad forms of government is that they are bounded by the popular will, that is the consent of the governed puts limits on the exercise of power. He's not advocating for the tyranny of the majority, rather saying that the power of Google and Facebook is particularly dangerous because it is not constrained or bounded in the way that a democratic government's power is bounded. I think you make a good point about institutions though. In practice they may be more important on a day to day basis than the popular will in placing constraints on government power.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I really love how you described this. Democracies run on their institutions, but are held together by the bounds the popular will sets on power.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
But Google and Facebook are constrained and bounded by the popular will of the users.
- imartin2k 9y ago
  At least when it comes to Facebook, for a significant number of people, participation in Facebook is not an actual choice. It's similarly to living without electricity: Yes, you could do it, but the costs are too large to actually do it in practice. It's still freedom of choice on paper (because no one points a gun at people and forces them to use Facebook), but not in practice. This is maybe one of Facebook's most crucial achievements: It has turned itself into something which people feel they cannot live without, even if they might hate it. Google is a bit different story. Living without Google is doable with some but not gigantic sacrifices.
  - pmiller2 9y ago
    I think that's overstating it. Who literally needs Facebook as much as electricity? I'm saying this as someone who has a Facebook account, but never logs in to it or posts anything.
    - macintux 9y ago
      It's certainly overstating it, but take this example from my own life. My step-sister spent years fighting cancer. I knew this, and would talk to her occasionally, but I wouldn't find out about significant events until after the fact. As soon as I surrendered and finally joined Facebook, I discovered she was in the hospital again, and was able to go visit and spend some quality time with her. As it turned out, it was the best conversation we ever had, the most time I spent 1:1 with her before she passed away. Are there other ways of keeping in touch with family? Sure. Once your family is invested in using Facebook, however, that's where you have to be to know what's going on all the time. I dislike Facebook, and look forward to getting rid of it. I cannot, however, dismiss the unique value it offers.
      - a1369209993 9y ago
        That's not value that it offers; that's value that it takes away from you by displacing better means of communication and then holds for ransom.
ewzimm 9y ago
This is a good point. Sustainable growth requires a balance of power, which is why things have developed in this direction. Collective action at large scale has traditionally been controlled by governments. The most successful governments are bounded by popular will, which is directed by institutions, which are informed by traditions that have developed from previous successes and failures. Disruptive innovation requires disturbing some part of that chain of influence. Microsoft and Apple have found success mostly by providing tools to people who exist in established parts of that chain. Google and Facebook and many other current-generation startups are more likely to use the power of collective action to create feedback loops where collective action directly informs further collective action with limited checks and balances. This sometimes leads to imbalances which spark mass outrage over policies that do not fit into people's concepts of how things ought to work. Is this kind of power sustainable? It's likely to follow a more volatile path of quick growth followed by outrage over the outcomes that make people uncomfortable, but it might find equilibrium regardless, as it still has to exist in the world that was formed by traditional institutions.
siruncledrew 9y ago
In reality, Google and Facebook grow more unbounded, as they continually use their power($) to buy more companies and become more horizontally-integrated organizations to add to their business models. This by proxy also absorbs the members/users of those other companies and brings them under their corporate umbrellas. It would be like if the U.S. decided it would be good for them to own the entire Caribbean in addition to Puerto Rico, so they acquired all the islands (through power or other means) and then those citizens became some sort of pseudo-citizens of the U.S. as a result.
- dfmooreqqq 9y ago
  Which, in reality, the US did do with manifest destiny... Deciding to get the whole space from sea to shining sea...
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Isn’t this just the story of all corporations though? They start selling a niche product, and then they have three axes for growth: vertical, horizontal, and addressable market. All corporations take “breaths” on each of these axes as they see opportunities. But a corporation that grows too wide finds a more focused competitor stealing their share. A company that grows too tall sees a competitor using network effects against them. Growing the addressable market generally lifts all ships, but hits a limit once you max out global marketing. Every company will eventually flex as far as they can on all these axes. I’m interested if you have some insight about something that makes Google particularly dangerous in the horizontal direction?

andrepd 9y ago

Can you elaborate how popular will brings authoritarianism? Seems like a complete non-sequitur.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
For instance, through supporting the most charismatic leader up to the point he gains enough power that not supporting him becomes dangerous.
ryanobjc 9y ago
Tyranny of the majority is a well known concept in political science. For example, initially the civil rights movement (both the civil war era, and the 1960s) and laws was quite unpopular. From a certain point of view, they were strong armed thru by activist judges and politicians who were violating the popular will.
- msla 9y ago
  > From a certain point of view, they were strong armed thru by activist judges and politicians who were violating the popular will. Not just "from a certain point of view", Obi-Wan: The whole point of a constitutional system is to check the majority, to say that some laws are impermissible, no matter how much the majority wants them, because they violate some principle we regard as more important than majority rule.
  - kolpa 9y ago
    But who is the "we" in this regard?
    - roenxi 9y ago
      Still the majority of the population, as it happens. If serious percentages (say, 60%) of a democracy want something enough that they make it a voting issue, it'll happen eventually. You'll get a candidate who is happy to do 'everything the other guy would do + X'. The big thing with constitutional changes is that they will normally require serious unity amongst the population, most of whom will likely by default agree with the constitution. The majority isn't greedy and evil, they just don't put up much of a fight when the politicians 'misunderstand' and implement policy that favours the majority without accepting the damage to a minority. There are a lot of policies like that, and in many cases one suspects the politicians know exactly what they are doing but the public is intellectually lazy.

fredch 9y ago

The author is obviously alluding to democracy.

kolpa 9y ago

Please explain the difference between “don’t be evil” and “Do the right thing”.

kingbirdy 9y ago
It's easier to agree on what's evil than what's right
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
glabula 9y ago
”do the right thing” requires taking action “Don’t be evil” can be achieved passively For example, if you spend all day watching TV you probably haven’t done evil, but you probably also haven’t done anything ‘right’ Right and evil are both words with a lot subjective meaning

vertexFarm 9y ago

Yeah, a pure democracy would be an absolute shithole. You don't want to live in a world where people's reddit votes determine every action of state, from legislation to foreign policy and war to incarceration. Kind of like that episode of The Orville.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> Popular will is not and never has been a sustainable form of authority. This is a strange claim. It could mean a number of things, but the senses in which it is defensible seem like stretches. Popular will brings fascism and authoritarianism because it is a source of authority. It has been the well-documented foundation of extremely powerful dictators going back to the ancient Greek tyrants. It was the basis of Julius Caesar's authority, and while it proved unsustainable for him, it was also crucially important for the emperors that followed him for the next few hundred years. At the other end of history, it has been a bedrock of the authority of recent dictators in Germany, Italy, Latin America, China, Russia, Africa, Korea, etc. etc. etc. etc. You could make the argument that governmental authority, over the course of centuries, doesn't generally derive directly from the popular will. But there are three problems with that argument: first, people generally don't care about whether the popular will 300 years from now will endorse the institutions of today. Second, while it is true that governmental authority over long periods does not derive from the popular will, it is always pretty harshly constrained by it. Third, religious organizations routinely do derive substantial authority solely from popular support, and they do this for many centuries at a time.

s2g 9y ago

> Institutions like “don’t be evil” Google is evil. Maybe they weren't at some point, but they absolutely are now.

qntty 9y ago

How do you have democracy without popular will?

pdonis 9y ago

> Institutions like “don’t be evil”, and “we will never sell your data”, are the entire reason why the current batch of tech earned enough trust to exist at all. And then, once they had earned our trust, they broke those institutions. So if they are the only alternative to "popular will", then it looks like we're screwed.

throw2016 9y ago

This is a very american centric perspective due to decades of propaganda by libertarians who want to set up an artificial divide between government and people. See 'Democracy in Chains' by Nancy Maclean. The government is you in a democracy, it's there to protect your and everyone else's interests, that what democracy and rule of law means. It's what guarantees a somewhat civilized society. It is not this simplistic 'majority can do what they want' illiteracy spread by market fundamentalists. Markets have existed for thousands of years, it did not lead to any civilization then and cannot now. Discrimination, segregation, slavery, plunder and exploitation are the result of uncontrolled capitalism and free markets, not democracy and 'popular will'. Anyone who knows history and human greed understands this instinctively. It appears some people become rich and increasingly alienated from people, society and government and begin to believe they don't need government. This is the kind of hubris that leads to tyranny and quasi feudalism, which is of course what they want.