6 ms·

I get uncomfortable with this line of thought. I would much rather let the market produce alternatives products when companies do things customers object to. T

I get uncomfortable with this line of thought. I would much rather let the market produce alternatives products when companies do things customers object to. The best thing about the internet is that it is so easy for another product to spring up to serve a new need or compete with ensconced businesses. Regulations increase cost of business and dissuades other companies from competing.

scarface74 8y ago
It's surprising to see how much many posters on HN want more government regulation over a tech company. It's about how so many are in favor of "taxing the rich", not realizing that to Middle America with an average household income of $70K, if you make over six figures, you are "the rich". And from the political skew of HN, I wonder how many actually trust this government with more power?
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  The problem is, right now Facebook and Twitter have significant power. And the question is whether or not you trust the government, but which you trust more: A company with a slogan of "move fast and break things", or a bureaucracy purpose-built to move very slowly and purposefully.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    That's not the only question. I don't trust either one, but one I can choose not to interact with, or to limit and control my interaction with.
    - FactolSarin 8y ago
      You don't have a choice about Facebook. They are collecting data about you right now and affecting the society you live in. At least the government is accountable through elections.
      - dvtrn 8y ago
        At least the government is accountable through elections. Yes, "accountable". Quotes here because voter suppression, disenfrachisment and aggressive gerrymandering are all things that really make me wonder about the substance of accountability ala plebiscite. And no, I am not throwing out any babies or bathwater here.
      - JoshTriplett 8y ago
        > They are collecting data about you right now Browsers can block that quite easily. > and affecting the society you live in And people are becoming more aware of how that happens, and developing tools to control and expose that, and at the end of the day people can choose to use it or not. > At least the government is accountable through elections. Not particularly, no. I feel far, far more enfranchised in my ability to choose what voluntary associations I form. I know I'm not the only one.
        whatislovecraft 8y ago
        > Browsers can block that quite easily. How? That's not possible. Facebook knows where you are and what you're doing, etc, without you even having a computer or smartphone at all. Your friends or their friends will already upload your address, phone number, contact info, etc. When you go out in public and you get caught in the background of someone else's photo, that you might not even know is being taken? They might post that to FB or Instagram, and then boom, FB gets another data point to analyze and find out where you go and what your habits are. "Browsers" can't block what Facebook does to track users, not even close. That would be a trillion-dollar-invention. > And people are becoming more aware of how that happens, Are they? I don't think they are. I think people are grossly misinformed about how the data is collected. > and developing tools to control and expose that Who is? I know of no serious efforts to meaningfully reduce the data FB is able to collect. > and at the end of the day people can choose to use it or not. No they cannot. None of these services or companies are opt-in. You have profiles with them long before you sign up. You are being manipulated and studied and watched and you have no choice about it.
      - ryandrake 8y ago
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Well, seeing that the government has the largest army in the world and the power to take away property via taxes and imminent domain, I worry much more about the government than Facebook.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    It's not just a bureaucracy built to move slowly and purposefully, it's one that we all, by design, have a say in operating. Don't like how Facebook runs its data collection on you whether you have an account or not? Tough. There's no, and will never be, a town hall for Facebook. Don't like how the county runs its health services departments? Well, you can show up at county council meetings, you can get involved politically, you can vote, etc. Fundamental difference.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Theoretically, yes. But if you live in a larger state like California, you have much less say in the federal government on a per capita basis than someone who lives in Rhode Island between the Senste (2 senators per state regardless of population) and the electoral college, not to mention gerrymandering.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Anybody who just blindly "trusts" any government, facebook, Google, or any large organization is a moron. You have to consider what you're trusting them to do. I trust organizations to act in my interest so long as our interests align. It is the difference between allies and friends.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > I wonder how many actually trust this government with more power? No matter someone's political views, it surprises me when people are willing to trust the government with more power as long as their party is in control, while forgetting that their party will not always be in control. Before assigning a new power to government, consider whether you'd trust the opposing party to wield it.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    The thing is, the government already has the power! Congress can pass any laws it likes, the president can try to veto, and the courts will decide what's legit or not. "Trusting this government with more power" is totally outside your control.
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      > "Trusting this government with more power" is totally outside your control. When you fight to pass a law that will create new government institutions and regulations and grow it in size, you're advocating the granting of more power to government. You are in control of whether you choose to advocate that or whether you choose to say "this could be abused". Government is the ultimate example of needing to consider yourself part of the threat model of your system.
  - CM30 8y ago
    Forget the future, some people seem to be making that mistake with an opposing government right now. How many people do you see on the 'left' of the political spectrum wanting the government to regulate 'fake news' or 'social media' or 'the internet' while forgetting that it's Donald Trump and co in power right now? You already see full well how much the government disagrees with its critics on what's considered fake news or not. Don't they realise it'd probably be pro Breitbart/pro Infowars regulation there, with the main targets being those outlets they support? Same goes for this social media regulation stuff. You won't get a crackdown on 'Russian propaganda', since the elected government over in the US does't believe it is an issue at all. Government agencies don't stay very independent either, and even if they do, you have no guarantee they'll do what you think is right at all. See net neutrality and Ajit Pai. So yeah, their party won't always be in control and in a lot of cases, their party isn't in control right now anyway.
- theseatoms 8y ago
  > It's surprising to see how much many posters on HN want more government regulation over a tech. Regulation is one of the best ways for incumbents to build a competitive moat against prospective new entrants.
- olefoo 8y ago
  You are applying heuristics for a normal distribution to a power law distribution. If you aren't in the .01% you aren't really that rich at all in the larger scheme of things.
- dralley 8y ago
  >to Middle America with an average household income of $70K 1) median is a better metric to use than average for this sort of thing 2) an average of 70K with two incomes is not at all impressive. a single person making 6 figures is doing incredibly well, compared to the average household.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-pe... I was actually off the 50th percentile is actually around $60K
dmitriid 8y ago
Show me a competing products. Show me how the market self-regulated to properly treat a customer’s data.
whatislovecraft 8y ago
> I would much rather let the market produce alternatives products when companies do things customers object to. Why, though? This line of thinking does not work in a modern, connected society. You can not any longer choose to avoid these services, and you will still be affected. Personal consumer choice may take decades to play out in the market, as people take time - a lot of time - to identify and address risks in a rapidly changing environment like tech and social. We all have Facebook profiles whether we want to or not - and this means that individual choice no longer means anything about whether or not the company survives. The market reacts very slowly. Are you willing for humanity to suffer from consequences we can identify and fix, but choose not to while we let the 'market' decided? Externalities are not priced in to the price of pollution and the damages done by climate change. The 'market' does not select for an optimal solution by anyone's definition here or with social/web. By letting the 'market' decide, you are directly allowing and accepting that billions of dollars of propaganda, meant to shape public opinion through the use of logical fallacies, scare tactics, etc, would end up being the deciding factor in how social media works. You'll end up with billionaire interests being 'market-encouraged' while the regular people will have no voice. > The best thing about the internet is that it is so easy for another product to spring up to serve a new need or compete with ensconced businesses. This doesn't seem true to me at all. If anything, the Internet is the most intrenched-money-takes-all platform we have. I think you are mistaken when it comes to your optimism about how the web works. > Regulations increase cost of business I think this is false. Regulations increase the sustainable lifetime of a business by providing a stable market to operate in for decades. > and dissuades other companies from competing. I think this is also false. Regulations create opportunities for sustainable business, and do not dissuade from real value creation.
aeternus 8y ago
I agree in theory, however our anti-trust laws are not strong enough to allow competition. Facebook, etc., can easily purchase any social network that gains significant traction, and has done so multiple times in the past. How do you solve for that?
bitwize 8y ago
Congressperson: We need to regulate social media because unregulated social media has these dangers, etc. The Public: I'm on board with that! Congressperson then introduces a bill that imposes regulations that benefit Congressperson's generous donors, while resulting in an even bigger shitshow than before for the public. The Public: WTF, man?! Congressperson (if Republican): That's what happens when you let "big government" and stifling regulation go unchecked! Who's up for repealing the Clean Air Act?
commandlinefan 8y ago
Even if I agreed with the reasoning behind regulating Facebook and Twitter, I'd be uncomfortable with the suggestion just based on my observation of unintended consequences around just this sort of thing...
r00fus 8y ago
> I would much rather let the market produce alternatives products Please identify how "alternatives" can displace an entrenched monopoly without regulatory interference? Is your solution just wait for FB to fail? A smart regulation would simply to require transparency or as someone mentioned elsewhere in another comment, a requirement for federation using some standard - ie, removing those monopoly barriers.

scarface74 8y ago

It's surprising to see how much many posters on HN want more government regulation over a tech company. It's about how so many are in favor of "taxing the rich", not realizing that to Middle America with an average household income of $70K, if you make over six figures, you are "the rich". And from the political skew of HN, I wonder how many actually trust this government with more power?

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
The problem is, right now Facebook and Twitter have significant power. And the question is whether or not you trust the government, but which you trust more: A company with a slogan of "move fast and break things", or a bureaucracy purpose-built to move very slowly and purposefully.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  That's not the only question. I don't trust either one, but one I can choose not to interact with, or to limit and control my interaction with.
  - FactolSarin 8y ago
    You don't have a choice about Facebook. They are collecting data about you right now and affecting the society you live in. At least the government is accountable through elections.
    - dvtrn 8y ago
      At least the government is accountable through elections. Yes, "accountable". Quotes here because voter suppression, disenfrachisment and aggressive gerrymandering are all things that really make me wonder about the substance of accountability ala plebiscite. And no, I am not throwing out any babies or bathwater here.
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      > They are collecting data about you right now Browsers can block that quite easily. > and affecting the society you live in And people are becoming more aware of how that happens, and developing tools to control and expose that, and at the end of the day people can choose to use it or not. > At least the government is accountable through elections. Not particularly, no. I feel far, far more enfranchised in my ability to choose what voluntary associations I form. I know I'm not the only one.
      - whatislovecraft 8y ago
        > Browsers can block that quite easily. How? That's not possible. Facebook knows where you are and what you're doing, etc, without you even having a computer or smartphone at all. Your friends or their friends will already upload your address, phone number, contact info, etc. When you go out in public and you get caught in the background of someone else's photo, that you might not even know is being taken? They might post that to FB or Instagram, and then boom, FB gets another data point to analyze and find out where you go and what your habits are. "Browsers" can't block what Facebook does to track users, not even close. That would be a trillion-dollar-invention. > And people are becoming more aware of how that happens, Are they? I don't think they are. I think people are grossly misinformed about how the data is collected. > and developing tools to control and expose that Who is? I know of no serious efforts to meaningfully reduce the data FB is able to collect. > and at the end of the day people can choose to use it or not. No they cannot. None of these services or companies are opt-in. You have profiles with them long before you sign up. You are being manipulated and studied and watched and you have no choice about it.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
- scarface74 8y ago
  Well, seeing that the government has the largest army in the world and the power to take away property via taxes and imminent domain, I worry much more about the government than Facebook.
- Frondo 8y ago
  It's not just a bureaucracy built to move slowly and purposefully, it's one that we all, by design, have a say in operating. Don't like how Facebook runs its data collection on you whether you have an account or not? Tough. There's no, and will never be, a town hall for Facebook. Don't like how the county runs its health services departments? Well, you can show up at county council meetings, you can get involved politically, you can vote, etc. Fundamental difference.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Theoretically, yes. But if you live in a larger state like California, you have much less say in the federal government on a per capita basis than someone who lives in Rhode Island between the Senste (2 senators per state regardless of population) and the electoral college, not to mention gerrymandering.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Anybody who just blindly "trusts" any government, facebook, Google, or any large organization is a moron. You have to consider what you're trusting them to do. I trust organizations to act in my interest so long as our interests align. It is the difference between allies and friends.
JoshTriplett 8y ago
> I wonder how many actually trust this government with more power? No matter someone's political views, it surprises me when people are willing to trust the government with more power as long as their party is in control, while forgetting that their party will not always be in control. Before assigning a new power to government, consider whether you'd trust the opposing party to wield it.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  The thing is, the government already has the power! Congress can pass any laws it likes, the president can try to veto, and the courts will decide what's legit or not. "Trusting this government with more power" is totally outside your control.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > "Trusting this government with more power" is totally outside your control. When you fight to pass a law that will create new government institutions and regulations and grow it in size, you're advocating the granting of more power to government. You are in control of whether you choose to advocate that or whether you choose to say "this could be abused". Government is the ultimate example of needing to consider yourself part of the threat model of your system.
- CM30 8y ago
  Forget the future, some people seem to be making that mistake with an opposing government right now. How many people do you see on the 'left' of the political spectrum wanting the government to regulate 'fake news' or 'social media' or 'the internet' while forgetting that it's Donald Trump and co in power right now? You already see full well how much the government disagrees with its critics on what's considered fake news or not. Don't they realise it'd probably be pro Breitbart/pro Infowars regulation there, with the main targets being those outlets they support? Same goes for this social media regulation stuff. You won't get a crackdown on 'Russian propaganda', since the elected government over in the US does't believe it is an issue at all. Government agencies don't stay very independent either, and even if they do, you have no guarantee they'll do what you think is right at all. See net neutrality and Ajit Pai. So yeah, their party won't always be in control and in a lot of cases, their party isn't in control right now anyway.
theseatoms 8y ago
> It's surprising to see how much many posters on HN want more government regulation over a tech. Regulation is one of the best ways for incumbents to build a competitive moat against prospective new entrants.
olefoo 8y ago
You are applying heuristics for a normal distribution to a power law distribution. If you aren't in the .01% you aren't really that rich at all in the larger scheme of things.
dralley 8y ago
>to Middle America with an average household income of $70K 1) median is a better metric to use than average for this sort of thing 2) an average of 70K with two incomes is not at all impressive. a single person making 6 figures is doing incredibly well, compared to the average household.
- scarface74 8y ago
  https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/ https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-pe... I was actually off the 50th percentile is actually around $60K

dmitriid 8y ago

Show me a competing products. Show me how the market self-regulated to properly treat a customer’s data.

whatislovecraft 8y ago

> I would much rather let the market produce alternatives products when companies do things customers object to. Why, though? This line of thinking does not work in a modern, connected society. You can not any longer choose to avoid these services, and you will still be affected. Personal consumer choice may take decades to play out in the market, as people take time - a lot of time - to identify and address risks in a rapidly changing environment like tech and social. We all have Facebook profiles whether we want to or not - and this means that individual choice no longer means anything about whether or not the company survives. The market reacts very slowly. Are you willing for humanity to suffer from consequences we can identify and fix, but choose not to while we let the 'market' decided? Externalities are not priced in to the price of pollution and the damages done by climate change. The 'market' does not select for an optimal solution by anyone's definition here or with social/web. By letting the 'market' decide, you are directly allowing and accepting that billions of dollars of propaganda, meant to shape public opinion through the use of logical fallacies, scare tactics, etc, would end up being the deciding factor in how social media works. You'll end up with billionaire interests being 'market-encouraged' while the regular people will have no voice. > The best thing about the internet is that it is so easy for another product to spring up to serve a new need or compete with ensconced businesses. This doesn't seem true to me at all. If anything, the Internet is the most intrenched-money-takes-all platform we have. I think you are mistaken when it comes to your optimism about how the web works. > Regulations increase cost of business I think this is false. Regulations increase the sustainable lifetime of a business by providing a stable market to operate in for decades. > and dissuades other companies from competing. I think this is also false. Regulations create opportunities for sustainable business, and do not dissuade from real value creation.

aeternus 8y ago

I agree in theory, however our anti-trust laws are not strong enough to allow competition. Facebook, etc., can easily purchase any social network that gains significant traction, and has done so multiple times in the past. How do you solve for that?

bitwize 8y ago

Congressperson: We need to regulate social media because unregulated social media has these dangers, etc. The Public: I'm on board with that! Congressperson then introduces a bill that imposes regulations that benefit Congressperson's generous donors, while resulting in an even bigger shitshow than before for the public. The Public: WTF, man?! Congressperson (if Republican): That's what happens when you let "big government" and stifling regulation go unchecked! Who's up for repealing the Clean Air Act?

commandlinefan 8y ago

Even if I agreed with the reasoning behind regulating Facebook and Twitter, I'd be uncomfortable with the suggestion just based on my observation of unintended consequences around just this sort of thing...

r00fus 8y ago

> I would much rather let the market produce alternatives products Please identify how "alternatives" can displace an entrenched monopoly without regulatory interference? Is your solution just wait for FB to fail? A smart regulation would simply to require transparency or as someone mentioned elsewhere in another comment, a requirement for federation using some standard - ie, removing those monopoly barriers.