7 ms·

Yeah let's restrict, ban and kill every new idea in it's crib, that'll surly make the world a better place, I'm happy you're enjoying your time in this entrepre

by srkmno 8y ago

Yeah let's restrict, ban and kill every new idea in it's crib, that'll surly make the world a better place, I'm happy you're enjoying your time in this entrepreneur community. Let's also make sure all future gains are made by the lawyers and other middle men so that world peace will finally be at hand.

pfisch 8y ago
Can you elaborate on the sum of facebooks contributions being positive? Not disagreeing here, I just don’t know what contributions you are referring to.
- betterunix2 8y ago
  It's not about Facebook, it is about some startup you have never heard of that actually is doing something positive for the world and suddenly finds its business smothered by poorly thought out regulations. Considering that we have powerful congressmen who do not even understand Facebook's business model (and whose staff failed to explain it to them) does not give me confidence in Congress' ability to craft constructive regulation.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    That's a terrifying possibility. Are there any actual case studies and examples of tech startups being killed by regulation? Or is this a campfire story that is retold whenever the possibility of regulation is mentioned.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      The inherent nature of regulations mean there is always going to be a 'winner' and a 'loser'. For example I have no doubts that regulations removing lead from gasoline resulted in lost profits and hurt businesses, but we can also believe that the societal gains were far greater than the losses. Similarly regulations in favor of privacy for citizens is going to naturally result in some companies, somewhere, having to adapt or take a hit or possibly not survive the transition. That doesn't mean we shouldn't implement those regulations because ultimately the larger monopolistic companies pose a far greater problem than the smaller startups can solve.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        I completely agree. I was referring to the GP's framing of the situation as Big Bad Regulation squashing Mom & Pop tech startups- a bogeyman of dubious existence.
        betterunix2 8y ago
        How willing are you to invest in an early-stage startup whose founders could be arrested over a data breach? How much of your own money would you be willing to risk? Would you be willing to work as a founder of such a company and take on the risk of jail time? If this "bogeyman" is of "dubious existence" then your answer should not be impacted at all by the nature of the regulation or the punishment for non-compliance.
        Apocryphon 8y ago
        Sure, given how many questionable firms from Theranos to Juicero have been successfully funded. So long as dumb money continues to flow, there is little to fear. When this bout of irrational exuberance does abate, tech will have bigger things to worry about than consumer protection laws.
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      If like me you view copyright and related laws like the DMCA as regulation, then absolutely -- all the peer-to-peer networking companies from 15 years ago were killed by regulation, not to mention companies that tried to sell circumvention tools (all killed by the DMCA). Really though, the tech industry has not yet been subject to such significant regulations. The history of the railroad industry is filled with examples of the destructive effects of bad regulations, ultimately leading to a near collapse of the entire industry in the 1960s (a cascade of bankruptcies, especially in the northeast). The Staggers Act saved the freight industry by relaxing rules, but passenger industry remains uneconomical and is basically quasi-state-run.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        That is a fair point about the DMCA, but doesn’t the reduction of piracy caused by both the rise of new upstart streaming services like Netflix or Steam, and the entrenched major players relenting and offering their own services and allowing their properties to be streamed, refute that legislation had a dampening effect on innovation? Not to mention, while some p2p tech companies were sued out of existence, others that went legit (like Napster) or toed the line (like BitTorrent) were not. Yes, regulation will lead to some losers. But it’s questionable that consumers will be among them.
        betterunix2 8y ago
        Netflix is basically just an incremental update to the cable TV model: one centralized distribution service that negotiates broadcasting rights. The only real difference is that people are free to choose when to watch things, and even that is just an "Internet version" of the same thing people had with their VCRs (time shifting) or rental services. It is innovation, yes, but in a box that does not really change the larger business model; by way of analogy it is like railroads switching from steam engines to diesel locomotives. Peer-to-peer is a totally different concept of global distribution, one that challenges the entire business model that is built around copyright. If Netflix is a diesel locomotive, peer-to-peer is an automobile -- it is more than just a new way to do the same thing that we had done previously, it is an entirely new concept of how things can be done. That is why the RIAA and MPAA panicked. They understand how to negotiate with or sue a centralized distributor like Netflix or Megaupload, but their entire business model is threatened by peer-to-peer distribution. Bittorent is only half the promise of peer-to-peer. Yes, you are participating in distribution, but you still need a central service to help you find the torrents you want to download. Hardly anybody is working on distributed search, or good ways to deal with spam/malware/etc. that do not involve a central service of some kind. There was a time when people were talking about peer-to-peer messaging systems, but the death of peer-to-peer left us all relying on more centralized approaches. Ironically, the death of peer-to-peer contributed to the rise of tech giants, all of which follow the same centralized model that peer-to-peer challenged. I think it is entirely possible that a peer-to-peer social networking system could have hindered the rise of Facebook. Youtube might never have been created if peer-to-peer had flourished. We may not have even been having this conversation if the talent that went into Google and Facebook had instead been devoted to peer-to-peer. It is impossible to know. The problem with deliberately killing a technology in its infancy is that it is hard to know how the technology might have developed or what it might do for society. It is certainly possible (I would say likely) that consumers would have benefited from the growth of peer-to-peer technology.
    - chillacy 8y ago
      By the time those case studies exist it'll be too late. Regulations have a way of coming into existence more than going out of existence. I don't see why we can't learn the same lessons from banking or manufacturing. An example of regulation I'm glad didn't pass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
      - pfisch 8y ago
        Are you saying the banking industry should be deregulated? That is not the big takeaway from history...
        chillacy 8y ago
        As someone in the tech industry I'm far too deep in conflicts of interest to make any good judgements on "should be" type questions :) Just like the clipper chip was a tradeoff between public safety and privacy (ultimately not passed because the cost was too large), any upcoming regulations will trade something away. As long as legislators are aware, then that's fine. However I will remark that our senators seem to be especially clueless about technology.
fzeroracer 8y ago
Considering right now companies like Facebook are very actively making the world a worse place I would say this would be a strong move towards something better.
- srkmno 8y ago
  Facebook is people and people suck. Facebook is also a scapegoat and to the contrary of what a resentful media industry would like you to believe the sum of their contributions to the world is overwhelmingly positive
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    Facebook is the tip of the iceberg. For every bad story about Facebook there's at least a dozen about Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Uber, AirBnB, and smaller players. Regulation designed to rein in the heavy hitters will not harm small startups, especially ones whose innovation is built upon careful flouting of law and loophole-seeking, anyway.
    - srkmno 8y ago
      Regulation as the result of "bad stories" yeah let heysteria and sensationalism lead the way. Facebook et al are not the source of all evil, they are actually a source of financial relief to most people, they are only a problem to media companies, and those who write books about how bad they are. It's healthcare and housing costs that are the bane of everyday people, this media fabricated tech backlash is a strategic distraction.
      - Apocryphon 8y ago
        > Regulation as the result of "bad stories" yeah let heysteria and sensationalism lead the way. That's literally how muckrakers during the Progressive Era alerted the public to the depredations of big business and forced government regulation of business practices to ensure competition and free enterprise. And how does any social media company provide "financial relief"?

by srkmno 8y ago

pfisch 8y ago

Can you elaborate on the sum of facebooks contributions being positive? Not disagreeing here, I just don’t know what contributions you are referring to.

betterunix2 8y ago
It's not about Facebook, it is about some startup you have never heard of that actually is doing something positive for the world and suddenly finds its business smothered by poorly thought out regulations. Considering that we have powerful congressmen who do not even understand Facebook's business model (and whose staff failed to explain it to them) does not give me confidence in Congress' ability to craft constructive regulation.
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  That's a terrifying possibility. Are there any actual case studies and examples of tech startups being killed by regulation? Or is this a campfire story that is retold whenever the possibility of regulation is mentioned.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    The inherent nature of regulations mean there is always going to be a 'winner' and a 'loser'. For example I have no doubts that regulations removing lead from gasoline resulted in lost profits and hurt businesses, but we can also believe that the societal gains were far greater than the losses. Similarly regulations in favor of privacy for citizens is going to naturally result in some companies, somewhere, having to adapt or take a hit or possibly not survive the transition. That doesn't mean we shouldn't implement those regulations because ultimately the larger monopolistic companies pose a far greater problem than the smaller startups can solve.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      I completely agree. I was referring to the GP's framing of the situation as Big Bad Regulation squashing Mom & Pop tech startups- a bogeyman of dubious existence.
      - betterunix2 8y ago
        How willing are you to invest in an early-stage startup whose founders could be arrested over a data breach? How much of your own money would you be willing to risk? Would you be willing to work as a founder of such a company and take on the risk of jail time? If this "bogeyman" is of "dubious existence" then your answer should not be impacted at all by the nature of the regulation or the punishment for non-compliance.
        Apocryphon 8y ago
        Sure, given how many questionable firms from Theranos to Juicero have been successfully funded. So long as dumb money continues to flow, there is little to fear. When this bout of irrational exuberance does abate, tech will have bigger things to worry about than consumer protection laws.
  - betterunix2 8y ago
    If like me you view copyright and related laws like the DMCA as regulation, then absolutely -- all the peer-to-peer networking companies from 15 years ago were killed by regulation, not to mention companies that tried to sell circumvention tools (all killed by the DMCA). Really though, the tech industry has not yet been subject to such significant regulations. The history of the railroad industry is filled with examples of the destructive effects of bad regulations, ultimately leading to a near collapse of the entire industry in the 1960s (a cascade of bankruptcies, especially in the northeast). The Staggers Act saved the freight industry by relaxing rules, but passenger industry remains uneconomical and is basically quasi-state-run.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      That is a fair point about the DMCA, but doesn’t the reduction of piracy caused by both the rise of new upstart streaming services like Netflix or Steam, and the entrenched major players relenting and offering their own services and allowing their properties to be streamed, refute that legislation had a dampening effect on innovation? Not to mention, while some p2p tech companies were sued out of existence, others that went legit (like Napster) or toed the line (like BitTorrent) were not. Yes, regulation will lead to some losers. But it’s questionable that consumers will be among them.
      - betterunix2 8y ago
        Netflix is basically just an incremental update to the cable TV model: one centralized distribution service that negotiates broadcasting rights. The only real difference is that people are free to choose when to watch things, and even that is just an "Internet version" of the same thing people had with their VCRs (time shifting) or rental services. It is innovation, yes, but in a box that does not really change the larger business model; by way of analogy it is like railroads switching from steam engines to diesel locomotives. Peer-to-peer is a totally different concept of global distribution, one that challenges the entire business model that is built around copyright. If Netflix is a diesel locomotive, peer-to-peer is an automobile -- it is more than just a new way to do the same thing that we had done previously, it is an entirely new concept of how things can be done. That is why the RIAA and MPAA panicked. They understand how to negotiate with or sue a centralized distributor like Netflix or Megaupload, but their entire business model is threatened by peer-to-peer distribution. Bittorent is only half the promise of peer-to-peer. Yes, you are participating in distribution, but you still need a central service to help you find the torrents you want to download. Hardly anybody is working on distributed search, or good ways to deal with spam/malware/etc. that do not involve a central service of some kind. There was a time when people were talking about peer-to-peer messaging systems, but the death of peer-to-peer left us all relying on more centralized approaches. Ironically, the death of peer-to-peer contributed to the rise of tech giants, all of which follow the same centralized model that peer-to-peer challenged. I think it is entirely possible that a peer-to-peer social networking system could have hindered the rise of Facebook. Youtube might never have been created if peer-to-peer had flourished. We may not have even been having this conversation if the talent that went into Google and Facebook had instead been devoted to peer-to-peer. It is impossible to know. The problem with deliberately killing a technology in its infancy is that it is hard to know how the technology might have developed or what it might do for society. It is certainly possible (I would say likely) that consumers would have benefited from the growth of peer-to-peer technology.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    By the time those case studies exist it'll be too late. Regulations have a way of coming into existence more than going out of existence. I don't see why we can't learn the same lessons from banking or manufacturing. An example of regulation I'm glad didn't pass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
    - pfisch 8y ago
      Are you saying the banking industry should be deregulated? That is not the big takeaway from history...
      - chillacy 8y ago
        As someone in the tech industry I'm far too deep in conflicts of interest to make any good judgements on "should be" type questions :) Just like the clipper chip was a tradeoff between public safety and privacy (ultimately not passed because the cost was too large), any upcoming regulations will trade something away. As long as legislators are aware, then that's fine. However I will remark that our senators seem to be especially clueless about technology.

fzeroracer 8y ago

Considering right now companies like Facebook are very actively making the world a worse place I would say this would be a strong move towards something better.

srkmno 8y ago
Facebook is people and people suck. Facebook is also a scapegoat and to the contrary of what a resentful media industry would like you to believe the sum of their contributions to the world is overwhelmingly positive
- Apocryphon 8y ago
  Facebook is the tip of the iceberg. For every bad story about Facebook there's at least a dozen about Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Uber, AirBnB, and smaller players. Regulation designed to rein in the heavy hitters will not harm small startups, especially ones whose innovation is built upon careful flouting of law and loophole-seeking, anyway.
  - srkmno 8y ago
    Regulation as the result of "bad stories" yeah let heysteria and sensationalism lead the way. Facebook et al are not the source of all evil, they are actually a source of financial relief to most people, they are only a problem to media companies, and those who write books about how bad they are. It's healthcare and housing costs that are the bane of everyday people, this media fabricated tech backlash is a strategic distraction.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      > Regulation as the result of "bad stories" yeah let heysteria and sensationalism lead the way. That's literally how muckrakers during the Progressive Era alerted the public to the depredations of big business and forced government regulation of business practices to ensure competition and free enterprise. And how does any social media company provide "financial relief"?