5 ms·

Sensationalist much? And that too coming from a guy who worked for a company who is bending over backwards(Zuck on board for Tsinghua Univ, asking Chinese presi

Sensationalist much? And that too coming from a guy who worked for a company who is bending over backwards(Zuck on board for Tsinghua Univ, asking Chinese president to name his baby etc). If not for China, there's no room for growth in traditional markets anymore. Yeah, there's Africa, South East Asia, but Google and FB already are putting on big efforts there. So whether you like it or not, if you want a billion users right away, you have to make a compromise. Apple did it, why not Google?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Judgmentality 8y ago
So...don't grow? I understand the pressures of Wall Street and being a publicly traded company, but Google (or Alphabet) is in an incredibly unique situation that the founders can do whatever they want and not be ousted by shareholders. I don't know what it's like to be worth tens of billions of dollars, but maybe that should be enough?
- int_19h 8y ago
  I'm more and more becoming convinced that we should just put a hard cap on company size. It's radical, yes, but all attempts to regulate those large corporate behemoths either turn out to be toothless in practice, or so heavy-handed that they cause too much trouble to everybody else.
  - votepaunchy 8y ago
    Just as radical, yes, but likely more effective would be to limit the size of political parties.
    - Judgmentality 8y ago
      A much simpler and more effective method would be to create a minimum of 3 official political parties. That way it would not be entirely us-vs-them and so many other benefits, including a rank voting system which is so much better. I believe, with no hard evidence, that a 3 party system could solve most of the political problems facing the United States today. Because it would remove the incentives to be impossible to work with (although I feel this applies to one party more than the other, it definitely goes both ways).
      - int_19h 8y ago
        If you create an electoral system that has ranked voting and, ideally, party-proportional representation (e.g. straight up party lists, or MMP), then you'll get more political parties pretty much automatically. As it is, we already have more than 3 parties (not sure what "official" means in this context, since you don't really have to register a party in US for it to meaningfully exist). The problem is Duverger's Law, which confines mainstream politics to the top two, and presents a near-insurmountable barrier for everybody else.
        Judgmentality 8y ago
        You might find this interesting http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/
    - int_19h 8y ago
      What do you mean by this? Limit the number of seats they can get in the legislature? What happens with all the excess votes if they hit the cap? In US specifically, this would also require recognizing that parties are even a thing. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about parties, and federal elections don't elect parties - they elect individual representatives, who happen to be affiliated with some party (sometimes not even in any official way - much like e.g. Bernie Sanders is an independent senator, even though in practice he votes with Democrats most of the time).
cauldron 8y ago
From my observation, in order to succeed in SEA and maybe Africa, you need to be predatory, the market has little rule, everyone is jostling to make the most bucks as quick as possible. And Xi is not a president, don't let their wording finesse fool you, they call the Korean War "Assisting NK against the US", to this day, vast majority of Chinese believe it was the US being the aggressor invading NK.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Judgmentality 8y ago

So...don't grow? I understand the pressures of Wall Street and being a publicly traded company, but Google (or Alphabet) is in an incredibly unique situation that the founders can do whatever they want and not be ousted by shareholders. I don't know what it's like to be worth tens of billions of dollars, but maybe that should be enough?

int_19h 8y ago
I'm more and more becoming convinced that we should just put a hard cap on company size. It's radical, yes, but all attempts to regulate those large corporate behemoths either turn out to be toothless in practice, or so heavy-handed that they cause too much trouble to everybody else.
- votepaunchy 8y ago
  Just as radical, yes, but likely more effective would be to limit the size of political parties.
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    A much simpler and more effective method would be to create a minimum of 3 official political parties. That way it would not be entirely us-vs-them and so many other benefits, including a rank voting system which is so much better. I believe, with no hard evidence, that a 3 party system could solve most of the political problems facing the United States today. Because it would remove the incentives to be impossible to work with (although I feel this applies to one party more than the other, it definitely goes both ways).
    - int_19h 8y ago
      If you create an electoral system that has ranked voting and, ideally, party-proportional representation (e.g. straight up party lists, or MMP), then you'll get more political parties pretty much automatically. As it is, we already have more than 3 parties (not sure what "official" means in this context, since you don't really have to register a party in US for it to meaningfully exist). The problem is Duverger's Law, which confines mainstream politics to the top two, and presents a near-insurmountable barrier for everybody else.
      - Judgmentality 8y ago
        You might find this interesting http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/
  - int_19h 8y ago
    What do you mean by this? Limit the number of seats they can get in the legislature? What happens with all the excess votes if they hit the cap? In US specifically, this would also require recognizing that parties are even a thing. There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about parties, and federal elections don't elect parties - they elect individual representatives, who happen to be affiliated with some party (sometimes not even in any official way - much like e.g. Bernie Sanders is an independent senator, even though in practice he votes with Democrats most of the time).

cauldron 8y ago

From my observation, in order to succeed in SEA and maybe Africa, you need to be predatory, the market has little rule, everyone is jostling to make the most bucks as quick as possible. And Xi is not a president, don't let their wording finesse fool you, they call the Korean War "Assisting NK against the US", to this day, vast majority of Chinese believe it was the US being the aggressor invading NK.