9 ms·

We live in an age of private companies owning the infrastructure facilitating daily life. For instance: 1. Communications infrastructure: FB, Twitter, private

We live in an age of private companies owning the infrastructure facilitating daily life. For instance: 1. Communications infrastructure: FB, Twitter, private sites hosted on big cloud vendors 2. Payments: Stripe, Braintree, ... 3. Cloud: Google, AWS, MSFT-Azure, ... 4. Transportation: Uber, Lyft, ... 5. Domain registration, hosting: GoDaddy, Google, AWS, ... Imagine running a real business while being banned from the aforementioned platforms --> It's unfeasible!!! Never ever in history have companies from the valley held outsized control over private communication and business. With this power comes great responsibility - one of which is tolerance for an opposing political thoughts. If these "infrastructure" companies start making it unfeasible for those with differing politics to exist online, they'll immediately draw regulatory ire. Not to mention that systemic censorship of certain thought is unethical. If AWS employees disagree with Palantair & ICE, they should consider other channels of expression - from social media to pressuring their elected representatives to call for change. But, if Palantair isn't engaged in illegal activity, they should be sent to an orientation in tolerance for opposing political philosophies.

philwelch 8y ago
When's the most recently that private companies haven't owned the infrastructure facilitating daily life? Railroads are private businesses, the telephone companies are private businesses, payments have to go through credit card companies and banks, TV and radio are private businesses. Roads are public, but you have to go through private businesses to buy, maintain, repair, and fuel your car. Commercial infrastructure providers have always had similar power, and sometimes even use it. The main reasons for them not using it has always been a combination of purely commercial motives for running a business--which is undermined by the founding myth of Silicon Valley as a haven for idealistic hippies trying to change the world--and the potential for competition--which is undermined by the monopolistic tendencies of the tech industry and the cultural groupthink on the West Coast. Ironically, Silicon Valley, the Internet, and the field of computer science itself all originate from WWII-era military R&D.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  When companies get to monopoly status (which the SV companies are), many of the kinds of things they could do as non-monopolies are no longer legal. They also face greater political scrutiny and legal action. This is as it should be. The railroad companies are heavily regulated, as are the phone companies, as are the energy companies, etc. They tried applying 1930s phone laws to the internet, and that didn't work out. At some point, they'll have to nut up and make some laws that prevent monopolies from doing bad things, or they'll have to allow the FTC to start breaking 'em up.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    Yeah, it’s a hard problem. And I think GP is right in the sense that being good stewards of their power will forestall any legislative action targeted against them. The Bell monopoly persisted for years by being on good terms with the government. Which is ironically an incentive for them to take defense and intelligence contracts.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Railroads and telephone companies are regulated. AFAIK, telecoms can't just refuse service to people because they disagree with their politics. Likewise, a toll-road can't just say, "we're not letting traffic from X company use this infrastructure." Private companies that sell cars are de-facto incapable of refusing service to certain groups, since another entity can just by the car and resell them to the banned party. Private common carriers like UPS and whatnot are also bound by similar rules if I'm not mistaken. I think it is fairly unprecedented that many of the pieces of infrastructure central to running a business are increasingly owned and run by companies that are allowed to refuse service to people on a whim. At least unprecedented since the early 20th century.
ezrast 8y ago
Political philosophy is not a protected status, nor should it be, and private entities should not be under pressure to give up their freedom of association. Consumers should have options, of course, but we get that through good old monopoly-busting (the situation is different for physically-entrenched monopolies like ISP's, but none of your listed industries are that). Aside from maybe payment processing, you're also drastically overstating how limited the options in these spaces are. There are literally hundreds of domain registrars. Hosting providers are also plentiful and you can always colo. Facebook and Twitter are not infrastructure. Uber and Lyft are not known for their business services in any case. Capricious bans do happen, but if someone somehow manages to get blacklisted from all of AWS, GCP, Azure, Rackspace, and DigitalOcean, odds are pretty good that that's society working as intended. It's nearly impossible to convince that many businesses not to take your money without actually being a terrible person who doesn't deserve to have your views publicized.
- classicsnoot 8y ago
  "If [an entity] somehow manages to get blacklisted from [every major player in a given industry], odds are pretty good that's society working as intended." I can see the logic behind your statement, but I think it is easier than you are asserting for zeitgeist to start a ball rolling that cannot be easily stopped in terms of pushing people/actors/organizations out of society for being on the "wrong side."
  - ezrast 8y ago
    Do you have any examples in mind?
    - classicsnoot 8y ago
      I am not invoking Godwin, but I happen to be reading a very interesting book on WWII that focuses largely on the industrial/logistical effort of the main actors. The coverage of Germany's industrial sectors, particularly the aeronautics companies like Messerschmitt, Junkers, etc. is a pretty good example. Looking deeper (read: other sources) shows a world where the political lean of the Order of the Day had massive influence on what products got made, which ideas were given attention and funding, and which people were either supported or blackballed. In 1930s Germany, the engineers and firms that maintained the proper signalling, or political tone, were given a wide berth in deciding what was relevant and irrelevant with little or no consideration for what worked and what did not. This is what sprang to mind when I read your comment.
stcredzero 8y ago
Is it feasible to build alternatives to 1, 2, 3, and 5?
- pizzazzaro 8y ago
  Communication? Sure. Decentralized works well enough. Diaspora? As far as privatizing the physical infrastructure: your hardware should be yours. Anything past that should be common carrier/ISP. Need an alternative? Good luck. Decentralize the cloud? Owncloud works on most hardware. Decentralizing payment software? What do ya think bitcoin is supposed to be? But decentralizing DNS... Yeah... That's a challenge. Probably not gonna happen non-maliciously for a long time.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Decentralizing payment software? What do ya think bitcoin is supposed to be? The 20-teens equivalent of tulip bulbs.

philwelch 8y ago

When's the most recently that private companies haven't owned the infrastructure facilitating daily life? Railroads are private businesses, the telephone companies are private businesses, payments have to go through credit card companies and banks, TV and radio are private businesses. Roads are public, but you have to go through private businesses to buy, maintain, repair, and fuel your car. Commercial infrastructure providers have always had similar power, and sometimes even use it. The main reasons for them not using it has always been a combination of purely commercial motives for running a business--which is undermined by the founding myth of Silicon Valley as a haven for idealistic hippies trying to change the world--and the potential for competition--which is undermined by the monopolistic tendencies of the tech industry and the cultural groupthink on the West Coast. Ironically, Silicon Valley, the Internet, and the field of computer science itself all originate from WWII-era military R&D.

tomohawk 8y ago
When companies get to monopoly status (which the SV companies are), many of the kinds of things they could do as non-monopolies are no longer legal. They also face greater political scrutiny and legal action. This is as it should be. The railroad companies are heavily regulated, as are the phone companies, as are the energy companies, etc. They tried applying 1930s phone laws to the internet, and that didn't work out. At some point, they'll have to nut up and make some laws that prevent monopolies from doing bad things, or they'll have to allow the FTC to start breaking 'em up.
- philwelch 8y ago
  Yeah, it’s a hard problem. And I think GP is right in the sense that being good stewards of their power will forestall any legislative action targeted against them. The Bell monopoly persisted for years by being on good terms with the government. Which is ironically an incentive for them to take defense and intelligence contracts.
manfredo 8y ago
Railroads and telephone companies are regulated. AFAIK, telecoms can't just refuse service to people because they disagree with their politics. Likewise, a toll-road can't just say, "we're not letting traffic from X company use this infrastructure." Private companies that sell cars are de-facto incapable of refusing service to certain groups, since another entity can just by the car and resell them to the banned party. Private common carriers like UPS and whatnot are also bound by similar rules if I'm not mistaken. I think it is fairly unprecedented that many of the pieces of infrastructure central to running a business are increasingly owned and run by companies that are allowed to refuse service to people on a whim. At least unprecedented since the early 20th century.

ezrast 8y ago

Political philosophy is not a protected status, nor should it be, and private entities should not be under pressure to give up their freedom of association. Consumers should have options, of course, but we get that through good old monopoly-busting (the situation is different for physically-entrenched monopolies like ISP's, but none of your listed industries are that). Aside from maybe payment processing, you're also drastically overstating how limited the options in these spaces are. There are literally hundreds of domain registrars. Hosting providers are also plentiful and you can always colo. Facebook and Twitter are not infrastructure. Uber and Lyft are not known for their business services in any case. Capricious bans do happen, but if someone somehow manages to get blacklisted from all of AWS, GCP, Azure, Rackspace, and DigitalOcean, odds are pretty good that that's society working as intended. It's nearly impossible to convince that many businesses not to take your money without actually being a terrible person who doesn't deserve to have your views publicized.

classicsnoot 8y ago
"If [an entity] somehow manages to get blacklisted from [every major player in a given industry], odds are pretty good that's society working as intended." I can see the logic behind your statement, but I think it is easier than you are asserting for zeitgeist to start a ball rolling that cannot be easily stopped in terms of pushing people/actors/organizations out of society for being on the "wrong side."
- ezrast 8y ago
  Do you have any examples in mind?
  - classicsnoot 8y ago
    I am not invoking Godwin, but I happen to be reading a very interesting book on WWII that focuses largely on the industrial/logistical effort of the main actors. The coverage of Germany's industrial sectors, particularly the aeronautics companies like Messerschmitt, Junkers, etc. is a pretty good example. Looking deeper (read: other sources) shows a world where the political lean of the Order of the Day had massive influence on what products got made, which ideas were given attention and funding, and which people were either supported or blackballed. In 1930s Germany, the engineers and firms that maintained the proper signalling, or political tone, were given a wide berth in deciding what was relevant and irrelevant with little or no consideration for what worked and what did not. This is what sprang to mind when I read your comment.

stcredzero 8y ago

Is it feasible to build alternatives to 1, 2, 3, and 5?

pizzazzaro 8y ago
Communication? Sure. Decentralized works well enough. Diaspora? As far as privatizing the physical infrastructure: your hardware should be yours. Anything past that should be common carrier/ISP. Need an alternative? Good luck. Decentralize the cloud? Owncloud works on most hardware. Decentralizing payment software? What do ya think bitcoin is supposed to be? But decentralizing DNS... Yeah... That's a challenge. Probably not gonna happen non-maliciously for a long time.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Decentralizing payment software? What do ya think bitcoin is supposed to be? The 20-teens equivalent of tulip bulbs.