4 ms·

This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation. OP starts with a seemingly related pivot to the topic of how to prioritize the regulati

This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation. OP starts with a seemingly related pivot to the topic of how to prioritize the regulation of a company like Google with the regulation of other companies. Such a conversation would obviously involve at least few points about why Google ought not top the list. (And hopefully many points given OP says Google is "by far" not top priority.) I was certainly interested to read such a digression... Then, like Alan Sokal's prank[1], OP leaves out any argument for that prioritization. Instead, OP moves directly to complaining about the other companies which OP has declared by fiat should take priority. And, voila! Every single comment below OP at the time of this writing similarly avoids the ostensible discussion about Google's prioritization, instead discussing only the other companies and the efficacy of their regulation. Potential regulation of Google as a topic is completely avoided in any of the child nodes of this OP. Whether this was intentional or not, it makes an excellent archetype for this tactic. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal

marta_morena_25 6y ago
Anyway, there are bigger problems in the world than Google. While I am not sure payment processing is more urgent that regulating Google, there are many other things that are orders of magnitudes more important to tackle than regulating Google.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  "Anyway", talking about the relative morality of the discussion is a derail from the ostensible topic.
  - ewzimm 6y ago
    Anyway, on the topic, none of the reasons presented in the article seem compelling. Government regulation should step in when consumers have no choice but to use something that has achieved a monopoly, and the payment networks mentioned do make a more compelling case. It seems inappropriate for regulation to step in when something happens to be popular but there are equal or better alternatives easily available, and changing to a different search engine is about the easiest change a person could make in their life. In the case of mitigating any bad behavior by Google, there's a very easy alternative solution for the problem, which is to convince people to use other search engines. I haven't used Google as mine for over 15 years and I don't believe I've suffered at all for it. I've found DuckDuckGo to perfectly suit my needs. Google run as a public utility could potentially hurt all the other search engines that many would consider to be superior solutions already.
jmoss20 6y ago
> X is the worst! > No, look at how bad Y and Z are! They're so bad! this is a... Sokal? (I think it's pretty easy to read the intent here, and more generally: internet comments are hardly rigorous proofs, and that's probably a good thing.)
jariel 6y ago
"This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation." It's just a comment, not a 'tactic'.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  Turns out, things can be viewed differently from different contexts. It's both a comment AND a tactic.
  - hevelvarik 6y ago
    It’s not a tactic without intent And if you hold that something can be a tactic without intent, then anything and everything is a tactic to bring about its related reaction.
three_seagrass 6y ago
HN threads are not 1:1 conversations. Threads start and branch on different topics, which are varying degrees related to the main post. Kind of like how you have now switched the discussion to Alan Sokal. That doesn't mean you are making some tactical shift as part of a larger strategy.
oh_sigh 6y ago
The argument for the prioritization is right in OPs post - a vast majority of every person-to-business transaction has a 3% transaction fee layered on top of it.
JAlexoid 6y ago
Google isn't top of the list - because it's way easier for a user to stop using, than MC and Visa networks. I would argue for an EU type approach and instead of regulating Google or payment networks - force demonopolization and opening up markets to more competition. If you wish I can even share the priority list in my mind, for what sectors require addressing before Google: 1. Actual local monopolies 2. Local education sectors and their organisations 3. Radio spectrum for local wireless internet and cable providers (to challenge local cable monopolies) 4. Banking and payments systems 5. Construction sector ... basically there's 99 problems and Google ain't one.
- badRNG 6y ago
  Monopolization of any industry isn't high up there on the priority list of issues we should address by far. Climate change, election interference, and COVID-19 are far more pressing issues than monopolization. However the fact that these other bigger issues exist doesn't mean we shouldn't care about or take action on the lesser. If one brings up how we should address issue 'x' and are met with "but what about issue 'y'?" it does give the impression of deflection or of whataboutism.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Those issues are all interrelated. We can't solve them because of corporate domination of the political system and the buying off of the American intelligensia.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      Where did that assumption come from? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they are bought off. Citation definitetly needed to even remotely approach a pattern like "bought off" let alone a proof.
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        It comes from years of observation and study of the structure of the government and society. If you're interested there are many books about this from Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman to critiques of the academy that shut up after the state started funding them extravegantly after WW2, to the current ossification that is easily observed where no policies are allowed to shift that benefit the wealthy at the expense of society. It is so extensive that one or two citations isn't sufficient and deserves a lifetime of study.
phkahler 6y ago
I wanted to say I dont think Googles dominance would be such an issue if they were forced to stop collecting personal data to target ads. IMHO they are already in decline in terms of relevant (to the user) search results.
a123b456c 6y ago
OP may have created some of the child replies, along with rings of upvotes. Classic astroturfing.
- dang 6y ago
  Posting like this is explicitly against the site guidelines. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules, we'd be grateful.
acituan 6y ago
> This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation. Or it is merely contextualizing the debate around what should and should not be considered a public utility by contrasting the case of Google with others. This in turn helps creating consistency and improves our understanding of the matter. This forum is not the platform where the fate of Google is decided, so "taking attention away" can't really have malicious consequences, if it helps us coming to a principled understanding.

marta_morena_25 6y ago

Anyway, there are bigger problems in the world than Google. While I am not sure payment processing is more urgent that regulating Google, there are many other things that are orders of magnitudes more important to tackle than regulating Google.

Supermancho 6y ago
"Anyway", talking about the relative morality of the discussion is a derail from the ostensible topic.
- ewzimm 6y ago
  Anyway, on the topic, none of the reasons presented in the article seem compelling. Government regulation should step in when consumers have no choice but to use something that has achieved a monopoly, and the payment networks mentioned do make a more compelling case. It seems inappropriate for regulation to step in when something happens to be popular but there are equal or better alternatives easily available, and changing to a different search engine is about the easiest change a person could make in their life. In the case of mitigating any bad behavior by Google, there's a very easy alternative solution for the problem, which is to convince people to use other search engines. I haven't used Google as mine for over 15 years and I don't believe I've suffered at all for it. I've found DuckDuckGo to perfectly suit my needs. Google run as a public utility could potentially hurt all the other search engines that many would consider to be superior solutions already.

jmoss20 6y ago

> X is the worst! > No, look at how bad Y and Z are! They're so bad! this is a... Sokal? (I think it's pretty easy to read the intent here, and more generally: internet comments are hardly rigorous proofs, and that's probably a good thing.)

jariel 6y ago

"This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation." It's just a comment, not a 'tactic'.

Supermancho 6y ago
Turns out, things can be viewed differently from different contexts. It's both a comment AND a tactic.
- hevelvarik 6y ago
  It’s not a tactic without intent And if you hold that something can be a tactic without intent, then anything and everything is a tactic to bring about its related reaction.

three_seagrass 6y ago

HN threads are not 1:1 conversations. Threads start and branch on different topics, which are varying degrees related to the main post. Kind of like how you have now switched the discussion to Alan Sokal. That doesn't mean you are making some tactical shift as part of a larger strategy.

oh_sigh 6y ago

The argument for the prioritization is right in OPs post - a vast majority of every person-to-business transaction has a 3% transaction fee layered on top of it.

JAlexoid 6y ago

Google isn't top of the list - because it's way easier for a user to stop using, than MC and Visa networks. I would argue for an EU type approach and instead of regulating Google or payment networks - force demonopolization and opening up markets to more competition. If you wish I can even share the priority list in my mind, for what sectors require addressing before Google: 1. Actual local monopolies 2. Local education sectors and their organisations 3. Radio spectrum for local wireless internet and cable providers (to challenge local cable monopolies) 4. Banking and payments systems 5. Construction sector ... basically there's 99 problems and Google ain't one.

badRNG 6y ago
Monopolization of any industry isn't high up there on the priority list of issues we should address by far. Climate change, election interference, and COVID-19 are far more pressing issues than monopolization. However the fact that these other bigger issues exist doesn't mean we shouldn't care about or take action on the lesser. If one brings up how we should address issue 'x' and are met with "but what about issue 'y'?" it does give the impression of deflection or of whataboutism.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Those issues are all interrelated. We can't solve them because of corporate domination of the political system and the buying off of the American intelligensia.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Where did that assumption come from? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they are bought off. Citation definitetly needed to even remotely approach a pattern like "bought off" let alone a proof.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      It comes from years of observation and study of the structure of the government and society. If you're interested there are many books about this from Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman to critiques of the academy that shut up after the state started funding them extravegantly after WW2, to the current ossification that is easily observed where no policies are allowed to shift that benefit the wealthy at the expense of society. It is so extensive that one or two citations isn't sufficient and deserves a lifetime of study.

phkahler 6y ago

I wanted to say I dont think Googles dominance would be such an issue if they were forced to stop collecting personal data to target ads. IMHO they are already in decline in terms of relevant (to the user) search results.

a123b456c 6y ago

OP may have created some of the child replies, along with rings of upvotes. Classic astroturfing.

dang 6y ago
Posting like this is explicitly against the site guidelines. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules, we'd be grateful.

acituan 6y ago

> This is a beautiful implementation of a tactic to shift a conversation. Or it is merely contextualizing the debate around what should and should not be considered a public utility by contrasting the case of Google with others. This in turn helps creating consistency and improves our understanding of the matter. This forum is not the platform where the fate of Google is decided, so "taking attention away" can't really have malicious consequences, if it helps us coming to a principled understanding.