5 ms·

I'm here to help. > [..] the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change.

I'm here to help. > [..] the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. -- Noam Chomsky

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
The flaw in Chomsky's argument is that the check on corporate power is competition. A corporation is a tyranny internally but as long as nobody has to work for that company or buy its products over a competitor's or is restricted from starting a new company to compete with them, they have no dictatorial powers. The way you change a corporation is by not patronizing it until it changes. If you do that alone nothing happens, but if you vote alone nothing happens either. If the majority does that with you then the corporation changes or there is a huge market opportunity for a competitor who will. And that even works when there is only a significant minority on your side, unlike voting. The problem with governments is that they don't work that way, so the opinion of anyone not in the majority is invalid. You're still subject to any laws passed over your objection, without any alternative short of leaving everything you've ever known and moving to another country. Or, in this case, not even if you do that, because the EU asserts that people can be subject to this law even if they don't live there. It's tyranny of the majority-of-a-place-you-don't-even-live.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > The way you change a corporation is by not patronizing it until it changes. Unless it's a monopoly or companies colluding, which is prevented by enforcement of regulation, not any goodness on behalf of corporations. And unless it's a conglomorate, in which case, "just switch the channel" can sound kind of hollow. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI In theory, we could change companies by abstaining, if they magically knew why you don't patronize them, and took that into acount. In practice we now have fewer consumer OS than in the 90s, the return of walled gardens, and people who avoid them don't affect anything, the walled gardens care less about what people want, than what the walled gardens want. > The problem with governments is that they don't work that way, so the opinion of anyone not in the majority is invalid. So why are their any laws, at all, protecting minorities, why are things like access to disabled regulated, why is not legal to just lynch a person "most people don't like", and so on? How long has Comcast been the worst thing since soaked bread, how is that possible, how have they not either changed or gone the way of the dodo? And why does Facebook keep regressing its UI even though anyone who cares hates it, "as long as most people don't mind"? How's YouTube shitting all over creators working out? Captured audiences and network effects wherever you look. For companies, "If the majority does that with you then the corporation changes" is apparently good enough, with governments you claim anyone but the majority gets outright ignored, when that's not even the case.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Unless it's a monopoly or companies colluding, which is prevented by enforcement of regulation, not any goodness on behalf of corporations. The other way to prevent that is greed on the part of other corporations, who want to come in and get a piece of that pie by undercutting the monopolist. > In practice we now have fewer consumer OS than in the 90s We have fewer consumer OS because Android and other free software ate them by being more of what consumers wanted. Creating a new OS has never been easier -- you can fork Android -- but first you have to find something to change about it that people actually want but it doesn't already have. > the return of walled gardens, and people who avoid them don't affect anything, the walled gardens care less about what people want, than what the walled gardens want. The walled gardens are propped up by laws that e.g. prevent third party clients from interoperating with the Play Store without Google's permission. > So why are their any laws, at all, protecting minorities, why are things like access to disabled regulated, why is not legal to just lynch a person "most people don't like", and so on? Because the majority of people want laws protecting minorities etc. The problem with democracy isn't that the majority can't be right, it's that it can be wrong without recourse. As was the case in the past when there were overt laws oppressing minorities and allowing anyone to lynch a person "most people don't like" with no legal repercussions etc. All of that happened in a democracy. > How long has Comcast been the worst thing since soaked bread, how is that possible, how have they not either changed or gone the way of the dodo? Because there are laws that make competing with them difficult and expensive. You may want to start a small ISP which is only serves your neighbors on your street, but the law requires you to serve the whole city. And if you try to do that, expect the incumbents to sink you with lawsuits. > And why does Facebook keep regressing its UI even though anyone who cares hates it, "as long as most people don't mind"? How's YouTube shitting all over creators working out? Because people don't actually care. It takes five minutes to switch from Facebook to anything else, and you can use two social networks at once until Facebook dies. But the fact is that most people just don't care -- and the people who do care already don't use it, and alternatives to it exist. Which is the thing that governments don't allow. And it's the same with YouTube. If the creators stopped using it, it would be a ghost town. And some of them have, and the rest of them don't care. There is no law forcing you to use YouTube instead of one of their competitors or self-hosting your own videos. > For companies, "If the majority does that with you then the corporation changes" is apparently good enough, with governments you claim anyone but the majority gets outright ignored, when that's not even the case. If you don't like Facebook, Twitter exists, and Reddit and Signal and email and Mastodon. Even if 90% of people use Facebook, you have the option to not. You don't have the option to opt out of a law.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

The flaw in Chomsky's argument is that the check on corporate power is competition. A corporation is a tyranny internally but as long as nobody has to work for that company or buy its products over a competitor's or is restricted from starting a new company to compete with them, they have no dictatorial powers. The way you change a corporation is by not patronizing it until it changes. If you do that alone nothing happens, but if you vote alone nothing happens either. If the majority does that with you then the corporation changes or there is a huge market opportunity for a competitor who will. And that even works when there is only a significant minority on your side, unlike voting. The problem with governments is that they don't work that way, so the opinion of anyone not in the majority is invalid. You're still subject to any laws passed over your objection, without any alternative short of leaving everything you've ever known and moving to another country. Or, in this case, not even if you do that, because the EU asserts that people can be subject to this law even if they don't live there. It's tyranny of the majority-of-a-place-you-don't-even-live.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> The way you change a corporation is by not patronizing it until it changes. Unless it's a monopoly or companies colluding, which is prevented by enforcement of regulation, not any goodness on behalf of corporations. And unless it's a conglomorate, in which case, "just switch the channel" can sound kind of hollow. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI In theory, we could change companies by abstaining, if they magically knew why you don't patronize them, and took that into acount. In practice we now have fewer consumer OS than in the 90s, the return of walled gardens, and people who avoid them don't affect anything, the walled gardens care less about what people want, than what the walled gardens want. > The problem with governments is that they don't work that way, so the opinion of anyone not in the majority is invalid. So why are their any laws, at all, protecting minorities, why are things like access to disabled regulated, why is not legal to just lynch a person "most people don't like", and so on? How long has Comcast been the worst thing since soaked bread, how is that possible, how have they not either changed or gone the way of the dodo? And why does Facebook keep regressing its UI even though anyone who cares hates it, "as long as most people don't mind"? How's YouTube shitting all over creators working out? Captured audiences and network effects wherever you look. For companies, "If the majority does that with you then the corporation changes" is apparently good enough, with governments you claim anyone but the majority gets outright ignored, when that's not even the case.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Unless it's a monopoly or companies colluding, which is prevented by enforcement of regulation, not any goodness on behalf of corporations. The other way to prevent that is greed on the part of other corporations, who want to come in and get a piece of that pie by undercutting the monopolist. > In practice we now have fewer consumer OS than in the 90s We have fewer consumer OS because Android and other free software ate them by being more of what consumers wanted. Creating a new OS has never been easier -- you can fork Android -- but first you have to find something to change about it that people actually want but it doesn't already have. > the return of walled gardens, and people who avoid them don't affect anything, the walled gardens care less about what people want, than what the walled gardens want. The walled gardens are propped up by laws that e.g. prevent third party clients from interoperating with the Play Store without Google's permission. > So why are their any laws, at all, protecting minorities, why are things like access to disabled regulated, why is not legal to just lynch a person "most people don't like", and so on? Because the majority of people want laws protecting minorities etc. The problem with democracy isn't that the majority can't be right, it's that it can be wrong without recourse. As was the case in the past when there were overt laws oppressing minorities and allowing anyone to lynch a person "most people don't like" with no legal repercussions etc. All of that happened in a democracy. > How long has Comcast been the worst thing since soaked bread, how is that possible, how have they not either changed or gone the way of the dodo? Because there are laws that make competing with them difficult and expensive. You may want to start a small ISP which is only serves your neighbors on your street, but the law requires you to serve the whole city. And if you try to do that, expect the incumbents to sink you with lawsuits. > And why does Facebook keep regressing its UI even though anyone who cares hates it, "as long as most people don't mind"? How's YouTube shitting all over creators working out? Because people don't actually care. It takes five minutes to switch from Facebook to anything else, and you can use two social networks at once until Facebook dies. But the fact is that most people just don't care -- and the people who do care already don't use it, and alternatives to it exist. Which is the thing that governments don't allow. And it's the same with YouTube. If the creators stopped using it, it would be a ghost town. And some of them have, and the rest of them don't care. There is no law forcing you to use YouTube instead of one of their competitors or self-hosting your own videos. > For companies, "If the majority does that with you then the corporation changes" is apparently good enough, with governments you claim anyone but the majority gets outright ignored, when that's not even the case. If you don't like Facebook, Twitter exists, and Reddit and Signal and email and Mastodon. Even if 90% of people use Facebook, you have the option to not. You don't have the option to opt out of a law.