5 ms·

I don't think it'll work anyway. Previous actions to disassemble companies worked because they were the only ones able to serve the customer. Phone companies

I don't think it'll work anyway. Previous actions to disassemble companies worked because they were the only ones able to serve the customer. Phone companies, operating system installed on computer, airlines, railroads, etc. The behavior here is not related to the companies being big. Break up a tech company, and some other company will equally likely feed you the same info, find your personal data to sell, deliver you biased news, etc. You've solved nothing.

supernova87a 6y ago
And I hate to be the bringer of discouraging news, but the reason tech companies are succeeding at selling us our own data is that we want it. In every click we make to like something, buy something targeted at us, listen to media we like, we teach companies or algorithms that we want what they have. And so yelling at the company for delivering what we have shown we want is a bit like yelling at yourself for eating so much ice cream. Until we put down our phones and stop reinforcing the outcome, we're a big source of our own problems. You might as well try to change human nature.
- redisman 6y ago
  This is fairly disingenuous. Our online behaviour is driven largely by billion/trillion dollar companies microtargeting people like you and manipulating our emotions and our neolithic era brain parts.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Adspending is way overvalued. Ad-people are buying adwords for their own company brand and do Powerpoints of the impressive conversion rate. Furthermore, showing ads for something I am allready looking for is probably not as profitable as the adspacebuyer thinks. They underestimate the chance of me buying their stuff anyway.
- nikitaga 6y ago
  And I hate to be the bringer of discouraging news, but the reason car manufacturers are succeeding at selling us polluting gas guzzlers is that we want it. Every time we buy an SUV and pay for gas, we teach companies and their executives that we want what they have. And so yelling at the company for delivering what we have shown we want is a bit like yelling at yourself for eating so much ice cream. Until we start using electric cars or transit, we're a big source of our own problems. You might as well try to change human nature. --- Yeah nope, this insight from the '80s didn't age well. Regulation has repeatedly fixed broken markets, and the whole ad tracking / data broker industry is beyond broken. The real "human nature" is responding to incentives. Applies to companies too. Adjusting those incentives with regulation has a long track record of being effective when done with even a modicum of goodwill and competence, which despite politicking is usually the case. Of course, breakups of individual companies won't achieve much as you said. But that doesn't justify jumping to "it's up to individuals to change their behaviour" mantra. That's exactly the bullshit that the plastics industry successfully used to pollute the whole planet with their garbage, blaming individuals for not recycling. You can debate the morals of that kind of blame, but you can't deny that it's completely ineffective at solving the problem.
tomp 6y ago
I disagree. There's different ways of solving techy-techy stuff. One is to have 2 or less mega-platforms (e.g. iPhone/Android is a duopoly, Google & Facebook are monopolies) that are barely compatible. The other is that the ecosystem is so open that competition is easy - e.g. email. The fears of some lawmakers about "if we break up US companies, then Chinese alternatives will take over" are misguided. This is pretty easy to prevent by (1) mandating compatibility (e.g. all social media must be open / federated, all phones must support all app frameworks) or (2) simply banning "rogue" companies (e.g. Chinese or in general those linked with security agencies and/or totalitarian regimes). In the long term, in particular (1) would IMO foster a lot of competition, and be hugely beneficial to consumers. In part because the market would be much more open - if some company wrongs you (sells/leaks your data?) you just move to another company.
- elisbce 6y ago
  Your argument is exactly the problem. The fragmentation is what would happen, and the consumers suffer from it rather than benefit from it. This has been proven over and over again by history. When AT&T was broken up, there were like a hundred smaller players, incompatible with each other, and everyone has to pay extra cost to communicate with each other. It is a backward step for the society. The consumers benefit from nothing. Don't just assume more smaller companies means better competition and better for the consumers. It is not necessarily true.

supernova87a 6y ago

And I hate to be the bringer of discouraging news, but the reason tech companies are succeeding at selling us our own data is that we want it. In every click we make to like something, buy something targeted at us, listen to media we like, we teach companies or algorithms that we want what they have. And so yelling at the company for delivering what we have shown we want is a bit like yelling at yourself for eating so much ice cream. Until we put down our phones and stop reinforcing the outcome, we're a big source of our own problems. You might as well try to change human nature.

redisman 6y ago
This is fairly disingenuous. Our online behaviour is driven largely by billion/trillion dollar companies microtargeting people like you and manipulating our emotions and our neolithic era brain parts.
rightbyte 6y ago
Adspending is way overvalued. Ad-people are buying adwords for their own company brand and do Powerpoints of the impressive conversion rate. Furthermore, showing ads for something I am allready looking for is probably not as profitable as the adspacebuyer thinks. They underestimate the chance of me buying their stuff anyway.
nikitaga 6y ago
And I hate to be the bringer of discouraging news, but the reason car manufacturers are succeeding at selling us polluting gas guzzlers is that we want it. Every time we buy an SUV and pay for gas, we teach companies and their executives that we want what they have. And so yelling at the company for delivering what we have shown we want is a bit like yelling at yourself for eating so much ice cream. Until we start using electric cars or transit, we're a big source of our own problems. You might as well try to change human nature. --- Yeah nope, this insight from the '80s didn't age well. Regulation has repeatedly fixed broken markets, and the whole ad tracking / data broker industry is beyond broken. The real "human nature" is responding to incentives. Applies to companies too. Adjusting those incentives with regulation has a long track record of being effective when done with even a modicum of goodwill and competence, which despite politicking is usually the case. Of course, breakups of individual companies won't achieve much as you said. But that doesn't justify jumping to "it's up to individuals to change their behaviour" mantra. That's exactly the bullshit that the plastics industry successfully used to pollute the whole planet with their garbage, blaming individuals for not recycling. You can debate the morals of that kind of blame, but you can't deny that it's completely ineffective at solving the problem.

tomp 6y ago

I disagree. There's different ways of solving techy-techy stuff. One is to have 2 or less mega-platforms (e.g. iPhone/Android is a duopoly, Google & Facebook are monopolies) that are barely compatible. The other is that the ecosystem is so open that competition is easy - e.g. email. The fears of some lawmakers about "if we break up US companies, then Chinese alternatives will take over" are misguided. This is pretty easy to prevent by (1) mandating compatibility (e.g. all social media must be open / federated, all phones must support all app frameworks) or (2) simply banning "rogue" companies (e.g. Chinese or in general those linked with security agencies and/or totalitarian regimes). In the long term, in particular (1) would IMO foster a lot of competition, and be hugely beneficial to consumers. In part because the market would be much more open - if some company wrongs you (sells/leaks your data?) you just move to another company.

elisbce 6y ago
Your argument is exactly the problem. The fragmentation is what would happen, and the consumers suffer from it rather than benefit from it. This has been proven over and over again by history. When AT&T was broken up, there were like a hundred smaller players, incompatible with each other, and everyone has to pay extra cost to communicate with each other. It is a backward step for the society. The consumers benefit from nothing. Don't just assume more smaller companies means better competition and better for the consumers. It is not necessarily true.