3 ms·

A few comments in this thread rub me the wrong way. E.g.: > It should be illegal. > How is this not regulated? No one forces you to use these services. The

A few comments in this thread rub me the wrong way. E.g.: > It should be illegal. > How is this not regulated? No one forces you to use these services. They're voluntary. Imagine you're looking for storage for some stuff. One company advertises a storage service, which is free, but there's a clause in the contract that says, "We can take your stuff at any time, for any reason, no backsies." Would you trust your stuff to that storage company? No, you wouldn't. That's insane. But somehow you rub a computer on it and everybody loses their common sense. - - - - Folks are naive (in re: computers) so you can either: 1) educate them, or 2) exploit them. FAANG et. al. choose to exploit their users, quite ruthlessly too IMO. A few companies actually try to educate their users (a very few. Adafruit, Wolfram, ... who else? I'm sure there are more but I'm drawing a blank right now. Basically any company that's built around teaching people what computers are and how to use computers, rather than farming "lusers".) - - - - To me the weird thing is how many people choose to be exploited peasants rather than educated Users. It's extra-weird to me when the peasants start jumping up and down shouting "Rabble rabble!" instead of just using some other non-exploitative system. (But then most folks' behaviour has never made sense to me, come to think of it. So what do I know? "Nationalize FAANG!" "Rabble rabble!")

bojo 6y ago
Sorry, but this is a terrible analogy. Your storage service isn't used for your primary identity/access management to your house, bank account, or utilities, and this is where your argument breaks down. Much like internet should be a regulated utility (in the US at least) due to how integrated with modern day society it is, the right to an unalterable email address should also be considered, especially due to the fact that it is used for identity management across numerous services. The vast majority of users out in the world use these free services because they don't know anything else, and nor would I expect them to. As pioneers we the technical community herded them at these push button solutions decades ago, and now it's up to us to realize we've somehow failed them at this point by locking them into monopolistic companies that don't have their best interests at heart. 1. We educate them and start promoting services which won't pull the carpet out from under them on a whim 2. We start advocating for regulation on the existing services and force them to comply
- carapace 6y ago
  > Your storage service isn't used for your primary identity/access management to your house, bank account, or utilities, and this is where your argument breaks down. If anything that strengthens my argument. > The vast majority of users out in the world use these free services because they don't know anything else, and nor would I expect them to. As pioneers we the technical community herded them at these push button solutions decades ago, and now it's up to us to realize we've somehow failed them at this point by locking them into monopolistic companies that don't have their best interests at heart. To me this just sounds like the worst sort of techno-elitism. You're describing a world of Morlocks and Eloi and campaigning for veganism. > 1. We educate them and start promoting services which won't pull the carpet out from under them on a whim Yes. I agree. > 2. We start advocating for regulation on the existing services and force them to comply. No. I disagree. I have come to believe that it's just simple hubris to think that we (the technical community) have any clue what's going on in re: normals using computers. Did you predict Twitter? I sure didn't. I predicted a lot, like coin vending machines for raccoons, and mesh networking. But no one cares about those things. Half the world thinks Facebook IS the Internet. Google-- FAANG and the other corps, are already AIs that merely farm human beings. The sick (IMO) thing is that most people are hunky-dorey with it. Amazon is one of the most trusted entities according to polls. Sovereignty is jealous: either these mechanical gods with humans for cells will become the new de facto governments of the world, or we nationalize them, which I don't even know what that would mean... Er, um, I got a little ranty there at the end, eh? Sorry. What I'm saying is, if they are private corporations then grabbing their services by legal theft is bad pool. If you really want to wrest control, go whole hog and nationalize the suckers.
  - bojo 6y ago
    > Half the world thinks Facebook IS the Internet. That was pretty much my point. Anyways, I think in a way we are saying the same thing. Keep fighting the good fight.
    - carapace 6y ago
      > That was pretty much my point. It was, wasn't it. Heh. I guess I'm basically saying that those folks bear at least some responsibility for their own ignorance. It's not like people haven't been trying to reach them and help them, eh? > Anyways, I think in a way we are saying the same thing. Keep fighting the good fight. Cheers! You too.
everfree 6y ago
> No one forces you to use these services. They're voluntary The problem is that they are a lot less voluntary then you think in certain segments. * Running ads against a blog without using Google Adsense puts you at a disadvantage. * Running an online store without Google Shopping puts you at a big disadvantage. * Bootstrapping an online video show without YouTube is effectively impossible. So if you are, say, an independent videographer, YouTube is not voluntary. The alternative is to not be an independent videographer, or to kludge together 5 other services that will get you 10% of the viewership and 10% of the revenue.
- carapace 6y ago
  My objection is to popular legal theft. The folks I'm calling out want those nice things you describe but not on the terms Google is (evidently) willing to offer them for and are therefore calling for laws to take them by force. In other words, what I hear you saying is that their excuse for (what I'm calling) theft is that the thing they're stealing is really good.
moonshinefe 6y ago
That analogy doesn't even make sense. Also, nobody is arguing that people are "being forced" to use google services, feel free to quote a single person here that said that.
- carapace 6y ago
  It makes sense to me, or I wouldn't have used it. > nobody is arguing that people are "being forced" to use google services My point is that they entered into the [contractual] relationship voluntarily and now that they have become dependent on their provider some folks here are saying that they want to alter the deal by legal end-run as opposed to just using some other service or trying to renegotiate en mass ("Google users' union", "Boycott Google", whatever) or creating or promoting alternatives. If you want to be a lemming and jump off the cliff, I don't like it but it's your life. The specific thing I'm on about here today is, don't jump off the cliff and then shout for the government to give you a parachute.
- carapace 6y ago
  Also, everfree, in a sib comment in this thread: > [these services] are a lot less voluntary then you think in certain segments. > So if you are, say, an independent videographer, YouTube is not voluntary. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24969812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24969812

bojo 6y ago

Sorry, but this is a terrible analogy. Your storage service isn't used for your primary identity/access management to your house, bank account, or utilities, and this is where your argument breaks down. Much like internet should be a regulated utility (in the US at least) due to how integrated with modern day society it is, the right to an unalterable email address should also be considered, especially due to the fact that it is used for identity management across numerous services. The vast majority of users out in the world use these free services because they don't know anything else, and nor would I expect them to. As pioneers we the technical community herded them at these push button solutions decades ago, and now it's up to us to realize we've somehow failed them at this point by locking them into monopolistic companies that don't have their best interests at heart. 1. We educate them and start promoting services which won't pull the carpet out from under them on a whim 2. We start advocating for regulation on the existing services and force them to comply

carapace 6y ago
> Your storage service isn't used for your primary identity/access management to your house, bank account, or utilities, and this is where your argument breaks down. If anything that strengthens my argument. > The vast majority of users out in the world use these free services because they don't know anything else, and nor would I expect them to. As pioneers we the technical community herded them at these push button solutions decades ago, and now it's up to us to realize we've somehow failed them at this point by locking them into monopolistic companies that don't have their best interests at heart. To me this just sounds like the worst sort of techno-elitism. You're describing a world of Morlocks and Eloi and campaigning for veganism. > 1. We educate them and start promoting services which won't pull the carpet out from under them on a whim Yes. I agree. > 2. We start advocating for regulation on the existing services and force them to comply. No. I disagree. I have come to believe that it's just simple hubris to think that we (the technical community) have any clue what's going on in re: normals using computers. Did you predict Twitter? I sure didn't. I predicted a lot, like coin vending machines for raccoons, and mesh networking. But no one cares about those things. Half the world thinks Facebook IS the Internet. Google-- FAANG and the other corps, are already AIs that merely farm human beings. The sick (IMO) thing is that most people are hunky-dorey with it. Amazon is one of the most trusted entities according to polls. Sovereignty is jealous: either these mechanical gods with humans for cells will become the new de facto governments of the world, or we nationalize them, which I don't even know what that would mean... Er, um, I got a little ranty there at the end, eh? Sorry. What I'm saying is, if they are private corporations then grabbing their services by legal theft is bad pool. If you really want to wrest control, go whole hog and nationalize the suckers.
- bojo 6y ago
  > Half the world thinks Facebook IS the Internet. That was pretty much my point. Anyways, I think in a way we are saying the same thing. Keep fighting the good fight.
  - carapace 6y ago
    > That was pretty much my point. It was, wasn't it. Heh. I guess I'm basically saying that those folks bear at least some responsibility for their own ignorance. It's not like people haven't been trying to reach them and help them, eh? > Anyways, I think in a way we are saying the same thing. Keep fighting the good fight. Cheers! You too.

everfree 6y ago

> No one forces you to use these services. They're voluntary The problem is that they are a lot less voluntary then you think in certain segments. * Running ads against a blog without using Google Adsense puts you at a disadvantage. * Running an online store without Google Shopping puts you at a big disadvantage. * Bootstrapping an online video show without YouTube is effectively impossible. So if you are, say, an independent videographer, YouTube is not voluntary. The alternative is to not be an independent videographer, or to kludge together 5 other services that will get you 10% of the viewership and 10% of the revenue.

carapace 6y ago
My objection is to popular legal theft. The folks I'm calling out want those nice things you describe but not on the terms Google is (evidently) willing to offer them for and are therefore calling for laws to take them by force. In other words, what I hear you saying is that their excuse for (what I'm calling) theft is that the thing they're stealing is really good.

moonshinefe 6y ago

That analogy doesn't even make sense. Also, nobody is arguing that people are "being forced" to use google services, feel free to quote a single person here that said that.

carapace 6y ago
It makes sense to me, or I wouldn't have used it. > nobody is arguing that people are "being forced" to use google services My point is that they entered into the [contractual] relationship voluntarily and now that they have become dependent on their provider some folks here are saying that they want to alter the deal by legal end-run as opposed to just using some other service or trying to renegotiate en mass ("Google users' union", "Boycott Google", whatever) or creating or promoting alternatives. If you want to be a lemming and jump off the cliff, I don't like it but it's your life. The specific thing I'm on about here today is, don't jump off the cliff and then shout for the government to give you a parachute.
carapace 6y ago
Also, everfree, in a sib comment in this thread: > [these services] are a lot less voluntary then you think in certain segments. > So if you are, say, an independent videographer, YouTube is not voluntary. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24969812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24969812