7 ms·

Great to see tech leaders get behind UBI. Now is the time and Yang is the candidate of a lifetime. I never understood how people buy into the whole "break up th

by sak5sk 7y ago

Great to see tech leaders get behind UBI. Now is the time and Yang is the candidate of a lifetime. I never understood how people buy into the whole "break up the tech giants" argument. It makes no sense, just a great platitude with no real accomplishment. Who wants to use the 2nd best Twitter or Facebook? Not a single person.

nickpinkston 7y ago
Usually "breakup" is a byword for regulate. However, it's possible to see how Amazon being broken into at least one online retailer, a web services company, and a logistics provider and how that may increase competition in each of those markets. Further, even in your social example, people used Instagram before Facebook bought them and likely still would if divested, and Snap, Tik Tok and more are going strong as independents.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  Amazon needs have it's retail side split into a marketplace operator and a retailer.
ubiopinion 7y ago
I still know people who love Instagram or WhatsApp but they hate Facebook. Little do they know both apps are owned by Facebook, and that's the problem Facebook keeps acquiring their threats, their competitors that's monopoly and seriously they're dangerous. Many people still don't know YouTube is owned by Google. This is a problem!
danShumway 7y ago
I'm assuming you're asking in good faith, so I'll point out three problems with your line of thought. First, you assume that having multiple competitors is pointless if one product is the clear winner. Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now, and the reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior, not innovation. They would argue that even if breaking up Twitter just resulted in 2nd-best Twitter, the existence of competition would force the original Twitter to innovate at a faster pace than it's moving right now. Second, you assume that there would be a clear "best" product. In truly competitive fields, it's often difficult to point to one product and say, "that's the best, and everyone else is settling for a worse product." Take iPhone and Android. Why does anyone use the 2nd best phone operating system? Why don't we have one OS? Because there isn't a clear 2nd best operating system. The products are good for different things, and fit different niches and use-cases. It seems obvious to me that the smartphone market is broad enough that other niches could be served better by more targeted alternatives to the two major OSes, if those alternatives were allowed to mature to the point where they became competitive. Finally, you misunderstand what the proposals about breaking up tech companies often entail. Most commonly when people talk about breaking up big-tech, I find they're talking about Warren. Warren's proposals are (roughly speaking) about separating product offerings and platforms. Her plan isn't to take Apple and force them to split up and create a second iOS. Her plan is to split Apple so that the company controlling the iOS App Store isn't the same company selling software on that store. It's not about blindly making a second Apple, it's about trying to remove conflicts of interest from platform maintainers. I'm not going to say whether or not I think that plan is good. I do think it's pretty unlikely to happen even if Warren is elected. But regardless, it's a very different, much narrower plan with very different goals and implications than what you're describing.
- true_religion 7y ago
  The break up Facebook plan isn’t going to end with two facebooks. They aren’t a phone company. They may be required to provide interoperability with other networks. This kind of federation is what tech people claim is what makes the internet good. Then there is the question of if all their sub companies need to be under one banner. Must they own WhatsApp? Instagram? Seems like they don’t need to but just swallowed up competitors.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    Exactly. Whether or not you think that Facebook is a monopoly, none of the Democratic candidates (or at least, none of the candidates that are serious) are talking about making a bunch of Facebook clones. They're talking about reversing mergers that many people claim were problematic (WhatsApp and Instagram). They're talking about forcing companies to give up the benefit of 1st-party access to the platforms they maintain. That's a much more narrow, targeted change than saying, "let's just make another Facebook", which is what I see people interpreting it as.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now Based on what criterion? > reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior, not innovation Can you give any examples of anticompetitive behavior exhibited by social media companies? > the existence of competition would force the original Twitter to innovate at a faster pace than it's moving right now If the "original" twitter kept the twitter brand and domain, absolutely nothing would change since that would be the equivalent of the status quo. It's not as if it's technically difficult to create a product similar to twitter, thus any attempt to break up big tech companies would mandate the retirement of the incumbent domain and brand. How would this be implemented practically? Also, what happens to all the user PII? Does it just get copied over to a new corporate entity which in effect doubles the risk of the data being hacked or leaked? On a more speculative note, I am not sure if it is a given that "innovation" in the realm of social media is necessarily a good thing for the consumer, especially considering that the barometer for social media success is engagement. Social media "innovation" inevitably means "getting more people to look at ads". > The products are good for different things, and fit different niches and use-cases Right, but those products exist because they serve a niche in the market, simply breaking up companies doesn't create a niche. > Her plan is to split Apple so that the company controlling the iOS App Store isn't the same company selling software on that store. How would this work? Would Valve be allowed to sell 1st party software on Steam? Would Google be allowed to sell their software on the play store? It seems pretty impractical to prohibit a company from selling their own products on a platform they own.
echelon 7y ago
How does UBI even work? Won't it just lead to rampant inflation where the basic income is spread thin, eaten up almost entirely by the rising cost of goods? It seems like this in turn will require an even higher basic income, which exacerbates the problem. Isn't an analogous situation that of private loans for tuition? Tuitions have risen across the board to eat up all the new "free" money in the system. Won't UBI make goods much more expensive for everyone and also increase our taxes? Wouldn't a better expenditure be providing healthcare? I'm earnestly curious.
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  The main cause of inflation is the artificial restriction of supply on certain items from govt/business. Housing isn't expensive because of the cost of labor/materials, for example. It's expensive because the government literally says "you can't build that here". So the 100 old parcels of land where you want to live have 1000 people bidding for them. UBI maybe on paper would cause additional inflation in that scenario. But it might also be the catalyst that allows people to move elsewhere for work, such as to a low cost of living area, because UBI can be relied on to survive.
  - rapsey 7y ago
    That sounds like a pet theory someone in the bay area comes up with. No economist I’ve read has any such opinion.
    - quaquaqua1 7y ago
      Please explain to me how you view how reality works then. I'm not related to SF in any way btw. The total legal occupancy of SF is smaller than the number of people who want to live there. The city delays the issuance of permits for expanding occupancy.
      - rapsey 7y ago
        Increase in the money supply and velocity of money. The money supply has increased dramatically and is why the bull market has been so long. However velocity is very low which has so far limited inflation. UBI would thus likely cause significant inflation. The bay area is rich and the rents follow suit. They are still limited to the overall supply of money in the area. Obviously increasing supply of real estate would help the issue of course.
jon_richards 7y ago
If you break them up, they’re forced to develop common protocols. Who wants to use the 2nd best email client? A lot of people, it turns out.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by sak5sk 7y ago

nickpinkston 7y ago

Usually "breakup" is a byword for regulate. However, it's possible to see how Amazon being broken into at least one online retailer, a web services company, and a logistics provider and how that may increase competition in each of those markets. Further, even in your social example, people used Instagram before Facebook bought them and likely still would if divested, and Snap, Tik Tok and more are going strong as independents.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
Amazon needs have it's retail side split into a marketplace operator and a retailer.

ubiopinion 7y ago

I still know people who love Instagram or WhatsApp but they hate Facebook. Little do they know both apps are owned by Facebook, and that's the problem Facebook keeps acquiring their threats, their competitors that's monopoly and seriously they're dangerous. Many people still don't know YouTube is owned by Google. This is a problem!

danShumway 7y ago

I'm assuming you're asking in good faith, so I'll point out three problems with your line of thought. First, you assume that having multiple competitors is pointless if one product is the clear winner. Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now, and the reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior, not innovation. They would argue that even if breaking up Twitter just resulted in 2nd-best Twitter, the existence of competition would force the original Twitter to innovate at a faster pace than it's moving right now. Second, you assume that there would be a clear "best" product. In truly competitive fields, it's often difficult to point to one product and say, "that's the best, and everyone else is settling for a worse product." Take iPhone and Android. Why does anyone use the 2nd best phone operating system? Why don't we have one OS? Because there isn't a clear 2nd best operating system. The products are good for different things, and fit different niches and use-cases. It seems obvious to me that the smartphone market is broad enough that other niches could be served better by more targeted alternatives to the two major OSes, if those alternatives were allowed to mature to the point where they became competitive. Finally, you misunderstand what the proposals about breaking up tech companies often entail. Most commonly when people talk about breaking up big-tech, I find they're talking about Warren. Warren's proposals are (roughly speaking) about separating product offerings and platforms. Her plan isn't to take Apple and force them to split up and create a second iOS. Her plan is to split Apple so that the company controlling the iOS App Store isn't the same company selling software on that store. It's not about blindly making a second Apple, it's about trying to remove conflicts of interest from platform maintainers. I'm not going to say whether or not I think that plan is good. I do think it's pretty unlikely to happen even if Warren is elected. But regardless, it's a very different, much narrower plan with very different goals and implications than what you're describing.

true_religion 7y ago
The break up Facebook plan isn’t going to end with two facebooks. They aren’t a phone company. They may be required to provide interoperability with other networks. This kind of federation is what tech people claim is what makes the internet good. Then there is the question of if all their sub companies need to be under one banner. Must they own WhatsApp? Instagram? Seems like they don’t need to but just swallowed up competitors.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Exactly. Whether or not you think that Facebook is a monopoly, none of the Democratic candidates (or at least, none of the candidates that are serious) are talking about making a bunch of Facebook clones. They're talking about reversing mergers that many people claim were problematic (WhatsApp and Instagram). They're talking about forcing companies to give up the benefit of 1st-party access to the platforms they maintain. That's a much more narrow, targeted change than saying, "let's just make another Facebook", which is what I see people interpreting it as.
root_axis 7y ago
> Proponents of breaking up tech giants would argue that Twitter and Facebook are not actually very good products right now Based on what criterion? > reason they're popular is largely due to network effects and anticompetitive behavior, not innovation Can you give any examples of anticompetitive behavior exhibited by social media companies? > the existence of competition would force the original Twitter to innovate at a faster pace than it's moving right now If the "original" twitter kept the twitter brand and domain, absolutely nothing would change since that would be the equivalent of the status quo. It's not as if it's technically difficult to create a product similar to twitter, thus any attempt to break up big tech companies would mandate the retirement of the incumbent domain and brand. How would this be implemented practically? Also, what happens to all the user PII? Does it just get copied over to a new corporate entity which in effect doubles the risk of the data being hacked or leaked? On a more speculative note, I am not sure if it is a given that "innovation" in the realm of social media is necessarily a good thing for the consumer, especially considering that the barometer for social media success is engagement. Social media "innovation" inevitably means "getting more people to look at ads". > The products are good for different things, and fit different niches and use-cases Right, but those products exist because they serve a niche in the market, simply breaking up companies doesn't create a niche. > Her plan is to split Apple so that the company controlling the iOS App Store isn't the same company selling software on that store. How would this work? Would Valve be allowed to sell 1st party software on Steam? Would Google be allowed to sell their software on the play store? It seems pretty impractical to prohibit a company from selling their own products on a platform they own.

echelon 7y ago

How does UBI even work? Won't it just lead to rampant inflation where the basic income is spread thin, eaten up almost entirely by the rising cost of goods? It seems like this in turn will require an even higher basic income, which exacerbates the problem. Isn't an analogous situation that of private loans for tuition? Tuitions have risen across the board to eat up all the new "free" money in the system. Won't UBI make goods much more expensive for everyone and also increase our taxes? Wouldn't a better expenditure be providing healthcare? I'm earnestly curious.

quaquaqua1 7y ago
The main cause of inflation is the artificial restriction of supply on certain items from govt/business. Housing isn't expensive because of the cost of labor/materials, for example. It's expensive because the government literally says "you can't build that here". So the 100 old parcels of land where you want to live have 1000 people bidding for them. UBI maybe on paper would cause additional inflation in that scenario. But it might also be the catalyst that allows people to move elsewhere for work, such as to a low cost of living area, because UBI can be relied on to survive.
- rapsey 7y ago
  That sounds like a pet theory someone in the bay area comes up with. No economist I’ve read has any such opinion.
  - quaquaqua1 7y ago
    Please explain to me how you view how reality works then. I'm not related to SF in any way btw. The total legal occupancy of SF is smaller than the number of people who want to live there. The city delays the issuance of permits for expanding occupancy.
    - rapsey 7y ago
      Increase in the money supply and velocity of money. The money supply has increased dramatically and is why the bull market has been so long. However velocity is very low which has so far limited inflation. UBI would thus likely cause significant inflation. The bay area is rich and the rents follow suit. They are still limited to the overall supply of money in the area. Obviously increasing supply of real estate would help the issue of course.

jon_richards 7y ago

If you break them up, they’re forced to develop common protocols. Who wants to use the 2nd best email client? A lot of people, it turns out.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]