3 ms·

I don't know why we need to attribute these properties to monopolies when a monopoly is in itself a bad thing. Also, I don't see concrete measures to end monopo

I don't know why we need to attribute these properties to monopolies when a monopoly is in itself a bad thing. Also, I don't see concrete measures to end monopolies being mentioned. Maybe it's time to realize that our industry has left the innovation phase, and is into consolidation. In this environment, legislation is well advised to look into mechanisms for a regulated market given the extreme importance of digital platforms and markets (which are the only ones having growth). And perhaps states should also play a much stronger role in setting standards rather than leaving that in a mixture of naivite and corruption to failed initiatives of market participants (such as the wannabe standard bodies W3C and WHATWG with disastrous results). After all, if "national security" (of the US, that is) is an argument to block market participants, and the web being monopolized, there's no point in pretending international trade or other fair trading rules apply.

mjburgess 6y ago
Why is a monopoly in itself a bad thing? A monopoly on violence is an extremely good thing: its absence is called a "civil war".
- kazagistar 6y ago
  There is no monopoly on violence because the state is non monolithic, and because much of the violence is outsourced to subcontractors with limited oversight. More importantly, monopoly on violence by the state is only good if the control of the state is distributed democratically to all affected by it, ie, if the control over violence is redistributed to all people equally. If violence is held in a monopoly by a small group of individuals for their personal benefit... then civil war is a better option. And corporations are structurrd exactly like that sort of despotism.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    Likewise for any monopoly. A monopoly is not all-consuming monolith (ie., a totalitarian state). Either way, my point was precisely that there are conditions on monopolies that make them beneficial. And hence the "in itself" condition fails.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Monopoly may be inevitable in many cases. The question then is where control and/or benefit lie / accrue. And yes, some monopolies may be useful, or have useful attributes. Key point I'm making are that: 1. Censorship / propaganda / surveillance / manipulation (CPSM if you will), are integral capabilities and attributes of informational monopoly. 2. All monopoly is inherently a control and power structure. Government represents both attributes, and may be broadly beneficial, representing the people and promoting commonweal, or tyrannical, representing and benefitting an oligarchic minority. So do business structures, cults, religions, military groups, mafia / organised crime syndicates, broadcast networks, online social media networks, newspaper publishers, film studios, transport networks, retail marketing networks, ...
dredmorbius 6y ago
If you want to understand, and hopefully address, a problem, a proper understanding is quite helpful, if not always essential. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc... This essay addresses etiology. My key point has been to join the three ills which seem to be the subject of much present discussion as having a common enabling factor. And that discussing the issues separately or without consideration of etiology has little value. Sometimes the answer will be dismantling sometimes it will be to modify governance, ensuring public, social, and or commonweal orientation; sometimes to create counterveilling power blocs to balance forces.

mjburgess 6y ago

Why is a monopoly in itself a bad thing? A monopoly on violence is an extremely good thing: its absence is called a "civil war".

kazagistar 6y ago
There is no monopoly on violence because the state is non monolithic, and because much of the violence is outsourced to subcontractors with limited oversight. More importantly, monopoly on violence by the state is only good if the control of the state is distributed democratically to all affected by it, ie, if the control over violence is redistributed to all people equally. If violence is held in a monopoly by a small group of individuals for their personal benefit... then civil war is a better option. And corporations are structurrd exactly like that sort of despotism.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Likewise for any monopoly. A monopoly is not all-consuming monolith (ie., a totalitarian state). Either way, my point was precisely that there are conditions on monopolies that make them beneficial. And hence the "in itself" condition fails.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24779491
dredmorbius 6y ago
Monopoly may be inevitable in many cases. The question then is where control and/or benefit lie / accrue. And yes, some monopolies may be useful, or have useful attributes. Key point I'm making are that: 1. Censorship / propaganda / surveillance / manipulation (CPSM if you will), are integral capabilities and attributes of informational monopoly. 2. All monopoly is inherently a control and power structure. Government represents both attributes, and may be broadly beneficial, representing the people and promoting commonweal, or tyrannical, representing and benefitting an oligarchic minority. So do business structures, cults, religions, military groups, mafia / organised crime syndicates, broadcast networks, online social media networks, newspaper publishers, film studios, transport networks, retail marketing networks, ...

dredmorbius 6y ago

If you want to understand, and hopefully address, a problem, a proper understanding is quite helpful, if not always essential. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarchy_of_failures_in_problem_resolution/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2fsr0g/hierarc... This essay addresses etiology. My key point has been to join the three ills which seem to be the subject of much present discussion as having a common enabling factor. And that discussing the issues separately or without consideration of etiology has little value. Sometimes the answer will be dismantling sometimes it will be to modify governance, ensuring public, social, and or commonweal orientation; sometimes to create counterveilling power blocs to balance forces.