4 ms·

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebri

by harry8 7y ago

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebrick adjusting their algos to promote say, anti-Warren content. How would we know? It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and it's a quite esoteric argument as to why it would make things worse (maybe a true, valid and legitimate argument, - but not the sort of thing that takes on support organically without a bit of push - can we see that push?). Then there's the obscenely large amounts spent by big tech on lobbying in washington and PR in the media and in places like right here. Do any of us really believe big tech isn't paying for PR here at hacker news? Whether the PR is working is a different question. Whether there is a lot of pro-big tech opinion, much of which I share, here organically is a different question - and yes there is. The only thing that would prevent paid PR here is if hacker news has no impact and paid PR could not influence and this was known, as far as I can see. Separate to the venture capitalist owners interests being served by mods, which of course happens and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, either.

majormajor 7y ago
> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and it's a quite esoteric argument as to why it would make things worse (maybe a true, valid and legitimate argument, - but not the sort of thing that takes on support organically without a bit of push - can we see that push?). I think the reason Warren could lose ground talking about Big Tech is pretty straightforward - it's a way less generally compelling, personally-broadly-relevant message than her other key issues, and so a distraction. Less a pure negative, but an opportunity-cost net negative.
- harry8 7y ago
  I have very strong doubts about that as an explanation.
- mc32 7y ago
  She’s too much of an ideologue —a bit like Bernie. It’s their way or the highway. So even if Joe is weaker as a candidate he’d be nominated over Warren and Sanders by the party, the people (primary voters) might go with an ideologue. That said, Tulsi is right, most of the party are a bunch of neocons (aside from Sanders and maybe Warren).
  - AlexCoventry 7y ago
    What of her policies seem ideologically driven, to you? To me, her policies seem extremely pragmatic.
    - mc32 7y ago
      Medicaid for all for one. Wanting to break up companies rather than regulate first. Yes, there is a problem with google and Facebook controlling what people see (algorithmic rather than organic) as well as soft and hard censorship, but I’m not sure the hammer of breakup is necessarily the first tool to go for in addressing the issue. Joe is more pragmatic, but he’s also just skating. Tulsi is more of what Washington needs. No more foreign interventions. Let them fight it out. We’re always in the middle and always get flak and everyone else just sits there and does nothing. Only get in if it’s meaningful to us.
harikb 7y ago
> Then there's the obscenely large amounts spent by big tech on lobbying in washington and PR in the media and in places like right here. Any data here? I would have thought compared to other industries, tech hasn’t spend nearly enough! Few people occasionally tweet our Google or Facebook having donated $2700 to one republican superpact or another. This has to be peanuts compared to any real money involved.
- harry8 7y ago
  first hit for the first search string that came to mind "facebook lobbying spend" https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/facebook-and-amazon-lead-tech-lobbying-spend-amid-antitrust-scrutiny.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/facebook-and-amazon-lead-tec...
  - nightsd01 7y ago
    $4M isn’t that much, even just in one quarter. Look at the oil/gas or health insurance industry if you want to see what a real lobbying bill looks like.
- Monroe13 7y ago
  Google has had the largest (or nearly so) lobbying spend for the past few cycles and in 2019 Facebook and Amazon are the top spending corporations. Spending a few million more than the defense contractors. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders There is no database of PR spending, but it’s telling that a study conducted by Edelman, the worlds largest PR firm, found Tech to be the most trustworthy sector. A cynic might say they are pandering to an important client base.
  - sujNansnam 7y ago
    > There is no database of PR spending, but it’s telling that a study conducted by Edelman, the worlds largest PR firm, found Tech to be the most trustworthy sector. A cynic might say they are pandering to an important client base. Survey showing that people trust tech is evidence that tech is corrupting our politics. Jeez, talk about confirmation bias. A PR firm could also use a negative trust score to sell a firm on how they need more PR.
kortilla 7y ago
> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care Maybe for liberals, but a lot of people on the right don’t care much for government intervention in industries without a compelling reason.
- harry8 7y ago
  I am on the right. Those on the right aren't changing their views on Warren because she discusses big tech. Really they aren't suddenly decicding they don't like her anymore. Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost curve and has network externalities. (Hence why there aren't 27 similar magnitude businesses competiung in the facebook space, for example). Indeed even if you have no facebook account and have taken your business elsewhere they have a shadow profile of you from your firends and from web trackers and so on. Google have your mail and analyze it even if you run your own server and have no google account. The list goes on from there. The case for regulation is overwhelming, what many of those of us of a libertarian bent want is /sensible/ regulation rather than the idiotic variety that is so prevalent. There aren't many on the right who think you should be able to poison the water or, switch off the taps and increase prices by a factor of 100. There aren't many on the right who think national defence payment should be "opt in" Anyway these are also esoteric arguments just as their counterarguments are and unlikely to get a groundswell of support either way without a splashy push. The election of Donald Trump was that push for a large number of people on all sides of politics. The counter to that push? Where is that?
  - nightsd01 7y ago
    Monopolies are typically considered “bad” because they hurt consumers by jacking up prices when they acquire a dominant market position. How is this happening with Facebook? How is Facebook hurting consumers in a way that could be alleviated by breaking it up into 5 smaller companies? If you take a look at something like disinformation campaigns, that’s something that big tech companies can handle MUCH better than smaller ones. And if we did break up FB, network effects will just lead us back to the same situation in a few more years anyways.

by harry8 7y ago

majormajor 7y ago

> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and it's a quite esoteric argument as to why it would make things worse (maybe a true, valid and legitimate argument, - but not the sort of thing that takes on support organically without a bit of push - can we see that push?). I think the reason Warren could lose ground talking about Big Tech is pretty straightforward - it's a way less generally compelling, personally-broadly-relevant message than her other key issues, and so a distraction. Less a pure negative, but an opportunity-cost net negative.

harry8 7y ago
I have very strong doubts about that as an explanation.
mc32 7y ago
She’s too much of an ideologue —a bit like Bernie. It’s their way or the highway. So even if Joe is weaker as a candidate he’d be nominated over Warren and Sanders by the party, the people (primary voters) might go with an ideologue. That said, Tulsi is right, most of the party are a bunch of neocons (aside from Sanders and maybe Warren).
- AlexCoventry 7y ago
  What of her policies seem ideologically driven, to you? To me, her policies seem extremely pragmatic.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Medicaid for all for one. Wanting to break up companies rather than regulate first. Yes, there is a problem with google and Facebook controlling what people see (algorithmic rather than organic) as well as soft and hard censorship, but I’m not sure the hammer of breakup is necessarily the first tool to go for in addressing the issue. Joe is more pragmatic, but he’s also just skating. Tulsi is more of what Washington needs. No more foreign interventions. Let them fight it out. We’re always in the middle and always get flak and everyone else just sits there and does nothing. Only get in if it’s meaningful to us.

harikb 7y ago

> Then there's the obscenely large amounts spent by big tech on lobbying in washington and PR in the media and in places like right here. Any data here? I would have thought compared to other industries, tech hasn’t spend nearly enough! Few people occasionally tweet our Google or Facebook having donated $2700 to one republican superpact or another. This has to be peanuts compared to any real money involved.

harry8 7y ago
first hit for the first search string that came to mind "facebook lobbying spend" https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/facebook-and-amazon-lead-tech-lobbying-spend-amid-antitrust-scrutiny.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/facebook-and-amazon-lead-tec...
- nightsd01 7y ago
  $4M isn’t that much, even just in one quarter. Look at the oil/gas or health insurance industry if you want to see what a real lobbying bill looks like.
Monroe13 7y ago
Google has had the largest (or nearly so) lobbying spend for the past few cycles and in 2019 Facebook and Amazon are the top spending corporations. Spending a few million more than the defense contractors. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders There is no database of PR spending, but it’s telling that a study conducted by Edelman, the worlds largest PR firm, found Tech to be the most trustworthy sector. A cynic might say they are pandering to an important client base.
- sujNansnam 7y ago
  > There is no database of PR spending, but it’s telling that a study conducted by Edelman, the worlds largest PR firm, found Tech to be the most trustworthy sector. A cynic might say they are pandering to an important client base. Survey showing that people trust tech is evidence that tech is corrupting our politics. Jeez, talk about confirmation bias. A PR firm could also use a negative trust score to sell a firm on how they need more PR.

kortilla 7y ago

> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care Maybe for liberals, but a lot of people on the right don’t care much for government intervention in industries without a compelling reason.

harry8 7y ago
I am on the right. Those on the right aren't changing their views on Warren because she discusses big tech. Really they aren't suddenly decicding they don't like her anymore. Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost curve and has network externalities. (Hence why there aren't 27 similar magnitude businesses competiung in the facebook space, for example). Indeed even if you have no facebook account and have taken your business elsewhere they have a shadow profile of you from your firends and from web trackers and so on. Google have your mail and analyze it even if you run your own server and have no google account. The list goes on from there. The case for regulation is overwhelming, what many of those of us of a libertarian bent want is /sensible/ regulation rather than the idiotic variety that is so prevalent. There aren't many on the right who think you should be able to poison the water or, switch off the taps and increase prices by a factor of 100. There aren't many on the right who think national defence payment should be "opt in" Anyway these are also esoteric arguments just as their counterarguments are and unlikely to get a groundswell of support either way without a splashy push. The election of Donald Trump was that push for a large number of people on all sides of politics. The counter to that push? Where is that?
- nightsd01 7y ago
  Monopolies are typically considered “bad” because they hurt consumers by jacking up prices when they acquire a dominant market position. How is this happening with Facebook? How is Facebook hurting consumers in a way that could be alleviated by breaking it up into 5 smaller companies? If you take a look at something like disinformation campaigns, that’s something that big tech companies can handle MUCH better than smaller ones. And if we did break up FB, network effects will just lead us back to the same situation in a few more years anyways.