3 ms·

You're conflating way too many things and oversimplifying the whole situation into a fictitious idea of conflicting mindsets. First of all, you're treating two

You're conflating way too many things and oversimplifying the whole situation into a fictitious idea of conflicting mindsets. First of all, you're treating two very different types of services as equal and identical. Netflix and Hulu are subscription content providers. Google and Facebook can be defined and described in many ways, but subscription content providers is not among them [1]. It's quite natural and understandable that people would have different expectations and complaints. Second, the situation with content providers isn't binary. The solution to the problem of not being to afford a whole bunch of subscription content providers is not limited to having one become a monopoly. Third, it's not just cost and convenience when it comes to access to content. Take Spotify Premium, for example. It's a subscription service that gives you access to all the music in its catalog as long as you pay your subscription. Except that there is absolutely no legal way for you to ensure access to any subset of the content. Have a favorite song, album or artist? Tomorrow it might disappear from Spotify's catalog and you have no way of hanging on to it. Fourth, the concerns that lead people to suggest that Google, Facebook or Amazon should be broken up are varied and nuanced, and they go way beyond cost and convenience. So no, I don't think you can sum up people's opinions into two seemingly contradictory mindsets. [1] Yes, I'm aware of YouTube and Spotify having a similar model. That actually happens to be a pretty good argument to break up Google.

ethbro 7y ago
I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to transparency. Subscription content business models are straightforward and marketed as such: $ for access. Ad supported business models are... murkier. And I'd say Google and Facebook haven't done a sufficient job in proactively informing the public about what they collect, how they generate revenue from it, and what's currently stored about a user. Also, ad supported models have the unfortunate side effect of having revenue directly tied to the greatest possible exploitation of existing data (and collecting greater amounts going forward). Which... aren't great ethical incentives.
- CodeMage 7y ago
  > I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to transparency. It's not that I disagree with you on the topic of transparency, it's that I think we can't really compare opinions on two very different topics as if they were the same topic. People complaining about too many subscription content providers are not really arguing for or against a monopoly. It's not the same discussion. > And I'd say Google and Facebook haven't done a sufficient job in proactively informing the public about what they collect, how they generate revenue from it, and what's currently stored about a user. Granted, but I'm pretty sure that even if they did so, it wouldn't make much difference. I always refer people to Moxie Marlinspike's DEF CON keynote called "Changing threats to privacy" [1]. I would definitely recommend watching it in full, but the key takeaway from it -- for the purposes of this discussion -- is that it all boils down to choice. He talks about the way technology changes the fabric of the society, how it changes the way people interact, communicate and coordinate, and declining to participate in this new way of doing things exposes you to the "no network effect". This is why it's not enough for Google and Facebook to merely inform people about what they collect and how they use it. As long as they're practically monopolies, they can disclose and inform and then go on just the same, because there's no other viable alternative and they'll work hard to ensure it stays that way. The traditional way of dealing with an incumbent that is too powerful to reasonably compete with is to break it up, in hopes of diminishing not its power to compete, but rather its power to stifle competition. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk

ethbro 7y ago

I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to transparency. Subscription content business models are straightforward and marketed as such: $ for access. Ad supported business models are... murkier. And I'd say Google and Facebook haven't done a sufficient job in proactively informing the public about what they collect, how they generate revenue from it, and what's currently stored about a user. Also, ad supported models have the unfortunate side effect of having revenue directly tied to the greatest possible exploitation of existing data (and collecting greater amounts going forward). Which... aren't great ethical incentives.

CodeMage 7y ago
> I think part of the difference in HN opinion color is somewhat related to transparency. It's not that I disagree with you on the topic of transparency, it's that I think we can't really compare opinions on two very different topics as if they were the same topic. People complaining about too many subscription content providers are not really arguing for or against a monopoly. It's not the same discussion. > And I'd say Google and Facebook haven't done a sufficient job in proactively informing the public about what they collect, how they generate revenue from it, and what's currently stored about a user. Granted, but I'm pretty sure that even if they did so, it wouldn't make much difference. I always refer people to Moxie Marlinspike's DEF CON keynote called "Changing threats to privacy" [1]. I would definitely recommend watching it in full, but the key takeaway from it -- for the purposes of this discussion -- is that it all boils down to choice. He talks about the way technology changes the fabric of the society, how it changes the way people interact, communicate and coordinate, and declining to participate in this new way of doing things exposes you to the "no network effect". This is why it's not enough for Google and Facebook to merely inform people about what they collect and how they use it. As long as they're practically monopolies, they can disclose and inform and then go on just the same, because there's no other viable alternative and they'll work hard to ensure it stays that way. The traditional way of dealing with an incumbent that is too powerful to reasonably compete with is to break it up, in hopes of diminishing not its power to compete, but rather its power to stifle competition. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk