3 ms·

It's not the number that OP is arguing, its this: > Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening online. T

It's not the number that OP is arguing, its this: > Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening online. This gives them ability to control big part of collective human consciousness, across languages and borders.

agrd00 6y ago
Agreed, that’s an overly reductionist way of seeking a resolution. I say focus on worker capture. The only “market” Adam Smith mentioned is a free labor market, which is free by its ability to move between offers fluidly. We have that to an extent in tech but not really and it’s hardly pervasive. If the problem is the billions to influence culture, IMO its employee culture spend that’s the biggest downside to monoliths. Wealth-caring becomes the corporate mantra. Or Jesus in the old days. It’s clear there is a biological addiction to privatized monoliths boxing in agency to fetishizing the monolith, by tickling our limbic brain just right and repeating “New trend we’re selling!” all day. Let’s not let them do that, but let people work.
VikingCoder 6y ago
Actually, they said, "I do have a problem with them being the best [six things], at the SAME time." It's reasonable to read that as the OP thinks the number should be less then 6. Yes, they also said other things, but I think I'm giving them a fair read of that sentence.
- dsabanin 6y ago
  It's not in the number of the products, it's in the scale of each of those products and the influence that they give them.
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    What should the law say is the new limit for the scale and influence they should be able to have?
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      Well if you look at the Sherman antitrust act I imagine the answer is whenever the scale and influence starts to touch on things that act says is a no go. Obviously that's a bit over simplistic but probably a good place to start.

agrd00 6y ago

Agreed, that’s an overly reductionist way of seeking a resolution. I say focus on worker capture. The only “market” Adam Smith mentioned is a free labor market, which is free by its ability to move between offers fluidly. We have that to an extent in tech but not really and it’s hardly pervasive. If the problem is the billions to influence culture, IMO its employee culture spend that’s the biggest downside to monoliths. Wealth-caring becomes the corporate mantra. Or Jesus in the old days. It’s clear there is a biological addiction to privatized monoliths boxing in agency to fetishizing the monolith, by tickling our limbic brain just right and repeating “New trend we’re selling!” all day. Let’s not let them do that, but let people work.

VikingCoder 6y ago

Actually, they said, "I do have a problem with them being the best [six things], at the SAME time." It's reasonable to read that as the OP thinks the number should be less then 6. Yes, they also said other things, but I think I'm giving them a fair read of that sentence.

dsabanin 6y ago
It's not in the number of the products, it's in the scale of each of those products and the influence that they give them.
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  What should the law say is the new limit for the scale and influence they should be able to have?
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Well if you look at the Sherman antitrust act I imagine the answer is whenever the scale and influence starts to touch on things that act says is a no go. Obviously that's a bit over simplistic but probably a good place to start.