5 ms·

That seems to be implying it is inherently a bad thing. Is trying to stop innovative companies also a hindrance to technological progress?

sincerely 8y ago
I mean, you're implying that "technological progress" is inherently a good thing.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Isn't it? Can you support your statement? Edit: am I really being downvoted for asking for evidence that technological progress (the driving force that made all people on Earth extraordinaly more rich) is bad? What is wrong with you, people?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    Some technological progress is good and some of it bad.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      No technological progress is bad. Sometimes this progress is used badly, but knowledge is definitely not bad.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
        You can't separate a technology from it's use. Technology is created to be used. Besides I could just as easily say some knowledge is good and some knowledge is bad. If you want to say that "knowledge is definitely not bad" then I'm going to ask you your own question - can you support that statement?
        TomMarius 8y ago
        > You can't separate a technology from it's use. Technology is created to be used. False. Every day, dozens of thousands of people in academia engage in basic research (actual term), something that does not lead to "usable technology" most of the time. > some knowledge is good and some knowledge is bad Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns.
        frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
        >Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns. I don't understand why you're resorting to metaphor, I think what I said was pretty clear. Can you support the statement that all knowledge is good?
        TomMarius 8y ago
        So our knowledge about guns is bad because guns kill? I can't explain it more, sorry. I think the explanation I've given is very obvious - technology can be used badly, but it's always the people who do it, not the technology itself. Technology is neutral, you can simply not use it - knowing it still might prove important for development of other technologies, e.g. for prevention, reparation, ... after the original technology is used, in case of nuclear weapons for example (how would we know how to prevent and treat radiation illness without knowing anything about nuclear physics), and at the very extreme, the technology itself will do nothing - until people start using it. People are bad, not technology.
      - eftychis 8y ago
        Well, I disagree. Partial knowledge and technology can be bad and extremely dangerous. In the 19th- early 20th century they were treating radioactive substances like they were chew toys (making toys etc). The worst nuclear accident happened near lake Karachay, because they had the technology to create nuclear weapons, but did not understand, or knew the danger and how to manage the waste. (Russians were trying to catch up and create their own arsenal, had acquired fragmented knowledge that were piecing together.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/20/graveyard-earth-inside-city-40-ozersk-russia-deadly-secret-nuclear https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/20/graveyard-ear...
        TomMarius 8y ago
        I'm not sure I understand you. You're saying that we will solve lack of knowledge with stopping the pursuit of knowledge?
        eftychis 8y ago
        No. My argument is kind of the opposite. I am here countering the point that gaining knowledge is a monotonous function with respect to "goodness"/value. We need to be cautious and acknowledge our lack of knowledge, when we move ahead.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        I fully agree with you, of course. That doesn't mean the technology is bad, though - it's just that people are too cocky and think they know everything. Knowledge can't be bad nor good, people and their use of knowledge are.
- genericone 8y ago
  Is preemptive regulation ever a good thing? How could any government have pre-regulated, say, the internet? If you are not for technological progress, is the corollary true, that you are for technological stagnation? Is not tech stagnation also tech attrition?
- euyyn 8y ago
  Why wouldn't it be?
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences http://newtechnologyandsociety.org http://newtechnologyandsociety.org
    - euyyn 8y ago
      That's kind of a poor reply. "Sometimes things have unintended consequences". And a link to a book that says that technology alone won't save the environment, more things will be needed.
      - dredmorbius 8y ago
        They may not be the answer you're looking for, but they're the answer. At least read the pagers linked. I strongly recommend the book in its entirety.
        euyyn 8y ago
        They aren't answers to the question I asked. "Why wouldn't technological progress be a good thing?"
b_b 8y ago
The point of antitrust regulations is to stop the anti-innovation practices in the first place, so while they may appear to be a 'benevolent dictator,' they will quickly turn for the worse.
- fixermark 8y ago
  It seems to be an open question whether letting a corp play benevolent dictator for some timeframe, at least, is a useful thing.
  - brightball 8y ago
    Basically it works until they have a reason to defend themselves.
  - chargingmylaser 8y ago
    Bell Labs was a monopoly (at least for a time period) and yielded countless high-impact, transformative innovations that a company with fewer resources (probably) would not have been able to develop. I think (although I could be wrong) most would agree they were a net benefit to society.
    - abandonliberty 8y ago
      In our local post-monopoly phone provider, 30 years ago dispatchers would call the local strip club bartender to reach their technicians. They were all on a first name basis. It was much better to work for these companies back then. Now, everything is super efficient and all that extra value the technicians generate go straight to executives and shareholders.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      Bell Labs was not a monopoly: it did not prevent operation of other research labs. E.g. the highly successful Xeroc PARC co-existed with them for a decade or two. Bell the telecom company was a monopoly that financed Bell Labs. Bell Labs did not go down in flames when Bell was partitioned in 1982, and continued providing the world with great achievements.
eftychis 8y ago
Innovative companies on their own are not really innovative really. A monopoly enforces their opinion and product in the world. If you don't like their price or approach too bad for you. You are kept out of the game (it is a monopoly right). As has been mentioned a bunch of times here, Google and Facebook have all too naturally embraced Microsoft's (and prior monopolies' ) approach of embrace, extend, and extinguish. There were at least 2-3 articles this week about the games Google plays (e.g. youtube loading faster on Chrome due to Google going ahead with their own suggested implementation without consensus). I don't think there is any economic model out there that even argues monopolies are a good idea in some fashion.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  > If you don't like their price or approach too bad for you. You are kept out of the game yes, basically true, i think. the article says Google spent more money on lobbying last year than any other corporation... why does Google think that spending money in this way is useful? what does Google get in return? how does Google explain to shareholders that this is not a waste?
  - stuckinarut 8y ago
    Are those rhetorical questions cause it seems liek the answer is pretty obvious in this context.
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      i think it depends upon the reader. a skeptical journalist or consumer might immediately conclude that Google is unfairly influencing government to create an unlevel playing field. but i'm genuinely curious to hear how Google would spin it.
  - adventured 8y ago
    > why does Google think that spending money in this way is useful? It's not useful, it's required. You have two choices. You can do the equivalent of what Microsoft did for a long time, and hide in the Pacific Northwest and pray that the Monster in DC just leaves you alone, while all of your competitors lobby to have you destroyed. You will not be left alone no matter what, if you achieve that kind of success, no matter how you achieve it. The only rational choice, is to get in the game and try to influence the outcome, which is what all of your competitors are going to be doing. Microsoft learned that very painful lesson after waiving at the US Government for years and thinking they could ignore what was going on with their competitors lobbying. Google learned from Microsoft's mistake, and got in almost immediately once their position became dominant. With the politics in DC, you're either in it defending your position, or you're dinner being served up by your competitors who are very aggressively in it and trying to use the political machine against you as a weapon. The US has a $7 trillion government system top to bottom, one third the size of the economy. There's no avoiding that.

sincerely 8y ago

I mean, you're implying that "technological progress" is inherently a good thing.

TomMarius 8y ago
Isn't it? Can you support your statement? Edit: am I really being downvoted for asking for evidence that technological progress (the driving force that made all people on Earth extraordinaly more rich) is bad? What is wrong with you, people?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  Some technological progress is good and some of it bad.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    No technological progress is bad. Sometimes this progress is used badly, but knowledge is definitely not bad.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
      You can't separate a technology from it's use. Technology is created to be used. Besides I could just as easily say some knowledge is good and some knowledge is bad. If you want to say that "knowledge is definitely not bad" then I'm going to ask you your own question - can you support that statement?
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        > You can't separate a technology from it's use. Technology is created to be used. False. Every day, dozens of thousands of people in academia engage in basic research (actual term), something that does not lead to "usable technology" most of the time. > some knowledge is good and some knowledge is bad Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns.
        frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
        >Are you saying that guns kill people? I thought that people kill people, using guns. I don't understand why you're resorting to metaphor, I think what I said was pretty clear. Can you support the statement that all knowledge is good?
        TomMarius 8y ago
        So our knowledge about guns is bad because guns kill? I can't explain it more, sorry. I think the explanation I've given is very obvious - technology can be used badly, but it's always the people who do it, not the technology itself. Technology is neutral, you can simply not use it - knowing it still might prove important for development of other technologies, e.g. for prevention, reparation, ... after the original technology is used, in case of nuclear weapons for example (how would we know how to prevent and treat radiation illness without knowing anything about nuclear physics), and at the very extreme, the technology itself will do nothing - until people start using it. People are bad, not technology.
    - eftychis 8y ago
      Well, I disagree. Partial knowledge and technology can be bad and extremely dangerous. In the 19th- early 20th century they were treating radioactive substances like they were chew toys (making toys etc). The worst nuclear accident happened near lake Karachay, because they had the technology to create nuclear weapons, but did not understand, or knew the danger and how to manage the waste. (Russians were trying to catch up and create their own arsenal, had acquired fragmented knowledge that were piecing together.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Karachay https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/20/graveyard-earth-inside-city-40-ozersk-russia-deadly-secret-nuclear https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/20/graveyard-ear...
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        I'm not sure I understand you. You're saying that we will solve lack of knowledge with stopping the pursuit of knowledge?
        eftychis 8y ago
        No. My argument is kind of the opposite. I am here countering the point that gaining knowledge is a monotonous function with respect to "goodness"/value. We need to be cautious and acknowledge our lack of knowledge, when we move ahead.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        I fully agree with you, of course. That doesn't mean the technology is bad, though - it's just that people are too cocky and think they know everything. Knowledge can't be bad nor good, people and their use of knowledge are.
genericone 8y ago
Is preemptive regulation ever a good thing? How could any government have pre-regulated, say, the internet? If you are not for technological progress, is the corollary true, that you are for technological stagnation? Is not tech stagnation also tech attrition?
euyyn 8y ago
Why wouldn't it be?
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences http://newtechnologyandsociety.org http://newtechnologyandsociety.org
  - euyyn 8y ago
    That's kind of a poor reply. "Sometimes things have unintended consequences". And a link to a book that says that technology alone won't save the environment, more things will be needed.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      They may not be the answer you're looking for, but they're the answer. At least read the pagers linked. I strongly recommend the book in its entirety.
      - euyyn 8y ago
        They aren't answers to the question I asked. "Why wouldn't technological progress be a good thing?"

b_b 8y ago

The point of antitrust regulations is to stop the anti-innovation practices in the first place, so while they may appear to be a 'benevolent dictator,' they will quickly turn for the worse.

fixermark 8y ago
It seems to be an open question whether letting a corp play benevolent dictator for some timeframe, at least, is a useful thing.
- brightball 8y ago
  Basically it works until they have a reason to defend themselves.
- chargingmylaser 8y ago
  Bell Labs was a monopoly (at least for a time period) and yielded countless high-impact, transformative innovations that a company with fewer resources (probably) would not have been able to develop. I think (although I could be wrong) most would agree they were a net benefit to society.
  - abandonliberty 8y ago
    In our local post-monopoly phone provider, 30 years ago dispatchers would call the local strip club bartender to reach their technicians. They were all on a first name basis. It was much better to work for these companies back then. Now, everything is super efficient and all that extra value the technicians generate go straight to executives and shareholders.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Bell Labs was not a monopoly: it did not prevent operation of other research labs. E.g. the highly successful Xeroc PARC co-existed with them for a decade or two. Bell the telecom company was a monopoly that financed Bell Labs. Bell Labs did not go down in flames when Bell was partitioned in 1982, and continued providing the world with great achievements.

eftychis 8y ago

Innovative companies on their own are not really innovative really. A monopoly enforces their opinion and product in the world. If you don't like their price or approach too bad for you. You are kept out of the game (it is a monopoly right). As has been mentioned a bunch of times here, Google and Facebook have all too naturally embraced Microsoft's (and prior monopolies' ) approach of embrace, extend, and extinguish. There were at least 2-3 articles this week about the games Google plays (e.g. youtube loading faster on Chrome due to Google going ahead with their own suggested implementation without consensus). I don't think there is any economic model out there that even argues monopolies are a good idea in some fashion.

HillaryBriss 8y ago
> If you don't like their price or approach too bad for you. You are kept out of the game yes, basically true, i think. the article says Google spent more money on lobbying last year than any other corporation... why does Google think that spending money in this way is useful? what does Google get in return? how does Google explain to shareholders that this is not a waste?
- stuckinarut 8y ago
  Are those rhetorical questions cause it seems liek the answer is pretty obvious in this context.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    i think it depends upon the reader. a skeptical journalist or consumer might immediately conclude that Google is unfairly influencing government to create an unlevel playing field. but i'm genuinely curious to hear how Google would spin it.
- adventured 8y ago
  > why does Google think that spending money in this way is useful? It's not useful, it's required. You have two choices. You can do the equivalent of what Microsoft did for a long time, and hide in the Pacific Northwest and pray that the Monster in DC just leaves you alone, while all of your competitors lobby to have you destroyed. You will not be left alone no matter what, if you achieve that kind of success, no matter how you achieve it. The only rational choice, is to get in the game and try to influence the outcome, which is what all of your competitors are going to be doing. Microsoft learned that very painful lesson after waiving at the US Government for years and thinking they could ignore what was going on with their competitors lobbying. Google learned from Microsoft's mistake, and got in almost immediately once their position became dominant. With the politics in DC, you're either in it defending your position, or you're dinner being served up by your competitors who are very aggressively in it and trying to use the political machine against you as a weapon. The US has a $7 trillion government system top to bottom, one third the size of the economy. There's no avoiding that.