7 ms·

A world in which companies are not allowed to selectively withhold proprietary data from some competitors, and form partnerships with others, is a world that su

by btown 8y ago

A world in which companies are not allowed to selectively withhold proprietary data from some competitors, and form partnerships with others, is a world that suboptimally promotes innovation and economic growth.

kitd 8y ago
... so long as everyone is complying with the law.
dec0dedab0de 8y ago
A world in which companies are not allowed to selectively withhold proprietary data from some competitors, and form partnerships with others, is a world that suboptimally promotes innovation and economic growth. Maybe economic growth, but how is innovation promoted by limiting access?
PavlovsCat 8y ago
How so?
dyeje 8y ago
I'm not advocating for anything here, but isn't hurting innovation and economic growth exactly what FB is doing by snuffing out promising products based on analytics?
- dnadler 8y ago
  Would it be better if, instead of analytics, they flipped a coin?
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Using analytics to restrict apps based on their popularity - if that's what Facebook did - is definitely much more anti-competitive behaviour and even more likely to hurt growth than simply being arbitrary or completely random in their decision making. But yes, a non-arbitrary policy of allowing developers access if they followed a transparent set of rules would obviously be better.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    I know you're being facetious, but it might actually be? In nature, random mutation leads to greater genetic diversity and speciation. In some mathematical optimizations, introducing random noise can help avoid getting stuck in local maxima.
  - fipple 8y ago
    Yes, because if they had to flip a coin they would buy fewer companies, which would lead to less market consolidation.
- spunker540 8y ago
  I think when you choose to sell your products on Amazon, or host your videos on YouTube or use FB login for your app, you're necessarily taking a risk by depending on a third-party for your success. It's possible to create your own login system or host your own videos or own your own e-commerce site and there are even a whole host of valid competitors for all these services too.
dao- 8y ago
This my be true as a rule of thumb. Different rules apply to monopolies (in most developed countries anyway), as different dynamics come into play and hinder innovation.
Jyaif 8y ago
That's a rehash of the argument against the existence of proprietary tech (and patents). It also has the same limitations: If there's no competitive advantage to having proprietary data, then what's the point of developing the tech and services to try and obtain it?
- ionised 8y ago
  I think you've answered your own question. There wouldn't be any point, and it would be totally fine.
kevmo 8y ago
Economic growth is overrated when it only goes to 1% of people.
- najarvg 8y ago
  Hidden in a lot of these economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of trickle-down economics which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times (see - https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572 https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-eff...)
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    And hidden in a lot of these anti-economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of planned economies, which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times :)
    - ionised 8y ago
      Are those the only two options you can see? Trickle-down economics or communism?
      - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
        Planned economies need not be communist, and no, but I was attempting (probably poorly) to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the argument that being pro-economic growth requires believing in trickle down economics.
CPLX 8y ago
That's a statement that requires evidence and proof. Market fundamentalists are so used to advancing arguments like this without being challenged that they have become almost completely divorced from the scientific method entirely. Maybe being forced to share this kind of proprietary data, in this specific type of circumstance, will actually promote a more diverse marketplace with higher innovation. Maybe it won't. Either way you don't just get to assert it.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  You're not a "fundamentalist" because you mention the fundamentals of a field of study. It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic. And given that the person you're responding to is stating something that most economists would agree with, I think the impetus is on you to tear it down with "the scientific method" if you think the prevailing wisdom is wrong. TLDR: don't provide proof for flat-earthers.
  - ionised 8y ago
    No, you're a fundamentalist if you stick to an ideology (e.g. trickle-down) in spite of all evidence suggesting it is highly flawed. > It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic. You mean you personally find it impossible to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you on the axioms of economics because it means you can't frame the argument in your own terms, which would be that there is no alternative to what you are espousing.
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      You don't actually know my views or what I'd espouse, so I'm curious about your hostility here :) My only point was that you may have better success railing against the conventional wisdom by providing an actual argument that it's wrong, not by ranting and raving about the existence of prevailing wisdom itself, and demanding that everyone provide a detailed proof every time they reference it. You should check out the works of Milton Friedman, you might find them interesting!
notahacker 8y ago
A world in which data monopolies and platform companies selectively withdraw much smaller companies' access to their services based on whether they wish those companies to fail or not probably isn't one which optimally promotes innovation and economic growth though.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Facebook is not a data monopoly, unless you take "data monopoly" to mean "has a set of a data that no one else does", in which case everyone is a data monopoly.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Nobody else has a comparable dataset on a comparable scale. Microsoft wasn't the only company supplying operating systems in the 1990s either.
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      Comparable dataset of what, exactly? Of Facebook's internal user data? Think about how much data Amazon has about all the suppliers and products they've sold over the last twenty years. Should they be forced to hand it over to anyone who wants it just because of the fact that its size and exclusivity makes it very valuable? What about the governments databases on everything under the sun? Should all of that be public? Maybe the answer to the above questions is yes, I don't know, but I don't think it's axiomatic.
      - notahacker 8y ago
        Nobody is suggesting everyone has a right to Facebook or any other company's data (just like nobody seriously suggested MS shouldn't be able to impose any restrictions on OEM Windows installations). They're suggesting that if a company sets itself up as a provider of data and other platform services to encourage everyone else in the market to become dependent upon it then selectively pulls the plug on the most successful companies or forces them into deeper partnerships, it's definitely harming the ecosystem. And that if Facebook has done that, it might also have fallen foul of laws which are there to stop that sort of practice.

by btown 8y ago

kitd 8y ago

... so long as everyone is complying with the law.

dec0dedab0de 8y ago

PavlovsCat 8y ago

How so?

dyeje 8y ago

I'm not advocating for anything here, but isn't hurting innovation and economic growth exactly what FB is doing by snuffing out promising products based on analytics?

dnadler 8y ago
Would it be better if, instead of analytics, they flipped a coin?
- notahacker 8y ago
  Using analytics to restrict apps based on their popularity - if that's what Facebook did - is definitely much more anti-competitive behaviour and even more likely to hurt growth than simply being arbitrary or completely random in their decision making. But yes, a non-arbitrary policy of allowing developers access if they followed a transparent set of rules would obviously be better.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  I know you're being facetious, but it might actually be? In nature, random mutation leads to greater genetic diversity and speciation. In some mathematical optimizations, introducing random noise can help avoid getting stuck in local maxima.
- fipple 8y ago
  Yes, because if they had to flip a coin they would buy fewer companies, which would lead to less market consolidation.
spunker540 8y ago
I think when you choose to sell your products on Amazon, or host your videos on YouTube or use FB login for your app, you're necessarily taking a risk by depending on a third-party for your success. It's possible to create your own login system or host your own videos or own your own e-commerce site and there are even a whole host of valid competitors for all these services too.

dao- 8y ago

This my be true as a rule of thumb. Different rules apply to monopolies (in most developed countries anyway), as different dynamics come into play and hinder innovation.

Jyaif 8y ago

That's a rehash of the argument against the existence of proprietary tech (and patents). It also has the same limitations: If there's no competitive advantage to having proprietary data, then what's the point of developing the tech and services to try and obtain it?

ionised 8y ago
I think you've answered your own question. There wouldn't be any point, and it would be totally fine.

kevmo 8y ago

Economic growth is overrated when it only goes to 1% of people.

najarvg 8y ago
Hidden in a lot of these economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of trickle-down economics which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times (see - https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572 https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-eff...)
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  And hidden in a lot of these anti-economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of planned economies, which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times :)
  - ionised 8y ago
    Are those the only two options you can see? Trickle-down economics or communism?
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      Planned economies need not be communist, and no, but I was attempting (probably poorly) to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the argument that being pro-economic growth requires believing in trickle down economics.

CPLX 8y ago

That's a statement that requires evidence and proof. Market fundamentalists are so used to advancing arguments like this without being challenged that they have become almost completely divorced from the scientific method entirely. Maybe being forced to share this kind of proprietary data, in this specific type of circumstance, will actually promote a more diverse marketplace with higher innovation. Maybe it won't. Either way you don't just get to assert it.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
You're not a "fundamentalist" because you mention the fundamentals of a field of study. It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic. And given that the person you're responding to is stating something that most economists would agree with, I think the impetus is on you to tear it down with "the scientific method" if you think the prevailing wisdom is wrong. TLDR: don't provide proof for flat-earthers.
- ionised 8y ago
  No, you're a fundamentalist if you stick to an ideology (e.g. trickle-down) in spite of all evidence suggesting it is highly flawed. > It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic. You mean you personally find it impossible to have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you on the axioms of economics because it means you can't frame the argument in your own terms, which would be that there is no alternative to what you are espousing.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    You don't actually know my views or what I'd espouse, so I'm curious about your hostility here :) My only point was that you may have better success railing against the conventional wisdom by providing an actual argument that it's wrong, not by ranting and raving about the existence of prevailing wisdom itself, and demanding that everyone provide a detailed proof every time they reference it. You should check out the works of Milton Friedman, you might find them interesting!

notahacker 8y ago

A world in which data monopolies and platform companies selectively withdraw much smaller companies' access to their services based on whether they wish those companies to fail or not probably isn't one which optimally promotes innovation and economic growth though.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
Facebook is not a data monopoly, unless you take "data monopoly" to mean "has a set of a data that no one else does", in which case everyone is a data monopoly.
- notahacker 8y ago
  Nobody else has a comparable dataset on a comparable scale. Microsoft wasn't the only company supplying operating systems in the 1990s either.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Comparable dataset of what, exactly? Of Facebook's internal user data? Think about how much data Amazon has about all the suppliers and products they've sold over the last twenty years. Should they be forced to hand it over to anyone who wants it just because of the fact that its size and exclusivity makes it very valuable? What about the governments databases on everything under the sun? Should all of that be public? Maybe the answer to the above questions is yes, I don't know, but I don't think it's axiomatic.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      Nobody is suggesting everyone has a right to Facebook or any other company's data (just like nobody seriously suggested MS shouldn't be able to impose any restrictions on OEM Windows installations). They're suggesting that if a company sets itself up as a provider of data and other platform services to encourage everyone else in the market to become dependent upon it then selectively pulls the plug on the most successful companies or forces them into deeper partnerships, it's definitely harming the ecosystem. And that if Facebook has done that, it might also have fallen foul of laws which are there to stop that sort of practice.