9 ms·

Consumers should come first before massive corporations. It's why we have regulations in the first place. A world controlled by a few giant conglomerates that

Consumers should come first before massive corporations. It's why we have regulations in the first place. A world controlled by a few giant conglomerates that own all of your data while providing the illusion of choice of "just don't buy it" is not a good outcome.

xvector 6y ago
> Consumers should come first before massive corporations And yet corporations don’t exist to do your particular bidding and make your desires real. Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make. Apple could, for all intents and purposes, sell useless slabs of aluminum. Your demands to have the government coerce them into creating open APIs would be just as outrageous in this scenario. Finally, giving the government this much power is shortsighted at best. Has the Trump administration not shown you the extremes the government can go to? The TikTok debacle after Trump’s Tulsa rally was ruined by it, calls to repeal Section 230, etc. The government is not your friend and it never will be. There will always come a time when it will abuse its powers to the greatest extent possible. Unless corporations are actively and illegally harming consumers, I don’t see why your proposal is necessary. Consider supporting companies that further your ideals with your own wallet rather than telling other companies what to do.
- zepto 6y ago
  Support such companies or actually work on projects that further them. The idea that the government is going to create an open software utopia is hard to understand.
- hnick 6y ago
  > Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make. OK so we make it illegal. Governments are good at that.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Make what illegal?
    - hnick 6y ago
      In this case, possibly nothing, since antitrust already exists. But I'm not qualified to decide. It is probably best to wait and see how this and the Apple/Epic case play out to see if changes are required. I'm just a bit sick of the argument "It's OK if it is legal" when laws exist to serve us and can be changed. Discussion is the first step. My comment was a response to that. Mandating right to repair and open platforms and formats (such as the circuit diagrams we used to get within our instruction manuals) would be one possibility.
      - zepto 6y ago
        You’d have to make that mandate global, otherwise you’d see countries that do permit trade secrets simply dominate the computing landscape. This is not a realistic option.
        hnick 6y ago
        I don't think it needs to be fully global, just a significant market. EU's mandate on USB-C chargers is one example where you lose a lot by opting out.
        zepto 6y ago
        How is a standardized charging socket in any way comparable to banning trade secrets? This doesn’t make sense to me.
        hnick 6y ago
        It's an example of a law in one country changing what a company does in another country to access the market, without a global mandate. I read that as the main point, not trade secrets. In your example, a company with trade secrets may want to (and be allowed to) keep circuit diagrams or charger designs secret in country A, but have to open them up to be allowed to sell in country B. It becomes a choice that carries a cost without a global mandate.
- manigandham 6y ago
  > "Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make" Exactly, legislation and legality is how we tell them what to do. > Your demands to have the government coerce them into creating open APIs would be just as outrageous in this scenario. I didn't demand govt-forced open APIs? Where did you come up with that? However right-to-repair and other freedoms and ownership over the hardware you purchase, especially when it's so critical to your life and centrally controlled, is worthwhile to pursue. > "giving the government this much power is shortsighted at best" Either the corporation or the government has the power. The challenge is finding the right balance, because neither should have complete authority.
  - xvector 6y ago
    > Exactly, legislation and legality is how well tell them what to do. What legislation do you propose? > I didn't demand govt-forced open APIs? Where did you come up with that? OP’s comment, which you seem to be arguing in favor of. Apologies if I misinterpreted. > Either the corporation or the government has the power. Obviously. So long as there are anti-monopolistic practices in place, you can choose the corporation you want to interface with easily. Nothing is stopping OP from buying an Android phone, PinePhone, or Purism Librem 5. Governments are not something you can choose, not really, and giving them wholesale control of how corporations can create tech products is granting them an absurd level of power, especially when viable alternatives already exist on the free market.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Right-to-repair and freedom to install and operate apps without going through a single centrally-controlled app store. Here's a question: Should the wireless networks that your phone requires to function follow net neutrality? Why or why not?
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Apple is approaching a monopsony over phone profits. Given time it could hollow out the competition until there is no practical alternative.
themacguffinman 6y ago
It's not an illusion, "just don't buy it" would have prevented all of this but clearly the majority of consumers don't agree with you. Whether or not you think it's a good outcome, consumers have largely chosen to buy or use the stuff that these companies make. Consumers have always come first, and they've already spoken.
- bmitc 6y ago
  Most consumers do not understand the repercussions nor do they understand the power these companies can weld, so you can't say they have spoken.
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    And I say they do, they don't just don't value it as highly as you do. It's awfully convenient to blindly assert that people can't be trusted to make their own choices, especially when the proposed solution is take away their choice with government regulation.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      How is their choice being taken away? They would only be gaining more freedom and control over their devices, not losing anything.
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        You know, it is possible that many people like Facebook as it is today considering that it's the most popular social network in the world. I'm also really curious what additional freedom and control over their devices consumers would gain from this antitrust suit given that no one is coerced into using Facebook (or Instagram, WhatsApp etc) and Facebook doesn't even make the devices that run those apps.
        manigandham 6y ago
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
> Consumers should come first before massive corporations. No one can come first. If the terms aren’t mutually agreeable, the other will not participate in a transaction. They don’t have to make things to sell you just like you don’t have to buy from them. It can’t work any other way.
- throwaway122378 6y ago
  Eventually when an individual’s access to basic human rights are controlled by products made by a single corporation, human rights can come first.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Yes, consumers and society come first before the corporations that serve them. The corporations only exist to provide, only survive because they do. Free markets and capitalism are great, the best system we have, but there are still guardrails to ensure proper behavior and mitigate harm. This is the problem being discussed. The balance in recent times is completely off with these massive software/internet companies that control so much of our lives with little oversight or accountability. This is what people are arguing against, and I believe you would agree with that.

xvector 6y ago

> Consumers should come first before massive corporations And yet corporations don’t exist to do your particular bidding and make your desires real. Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make. Apple could, for all intents and purposes, sell useless slabs of aluminum. Your demands to have the government coerce them into creating open APIs would be just as outrageous in this scenario. Finally, giving the government this much power is shortsighted at best. Has the Trump administration not shown you the extremes the government can go to? The TikTok debacle after Trump’s Tulsa rally was ruined by it, calls to repeal Section 230, etc. The government is not your friend and it never will be. There will always come a time when it will abuse its powers to the greatest extent possible. Unless corporations are actively and illegally harming consumers, I don’t see why your proposal is necessary. Consider supporting companies that further your ideals with your own wallet rather than telling other companies what to do.

zepto 6y ago
Support such companies or actually work on projects that further them. The idea that the government is going to create an open software utopia is hard to understand.
hnick 6y ago
> Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make. OK so we make it illegal. Governments are good at that.
- zepto 6y ago
  Make what illegal?
  - hnick 6y ago
    In this case, possibly nothing, since antitrust already exists. But I'm not qualified to decide. It is probably best to wait and see how this and the Apple/Epic case play out to see if changes are required. I'm just a bit sick of the argument "It's OK if it is legal" when laws exist to serve us and can be changed. Discussion is the first step. My comment was a response to that. Mandating right to repair and open platforms and formats (such as the circuit diagrams we used to get within our instruction manuals) would be one possibility.
    - zepto 6y ago
      You’d have to make that mandate global, otherwise you’d see countries that do permit trade secrets simply dominate the computing landscape. This is not a realistic option.
      - hnick 6y ago
        I don't think it needs to be fully global, just a significant market. EU's mandate on USB-C chargers is one example where you lose a lot by opting out.
        zepto 6y ago
        How is a standardized charging socket in any way comparable to banning trade secrets? This doesn’t make sense to me.
        hnick 6y ago
        It's an example of a law in one country changing what a company does in another country to access the market, without a global mandate. I read that as the main point, not trade secrets. In your example, a company with trade secrets may want to (and be allowed to) keep circuit diagrams or charger designs secret in country A, but have to open them up to be allowed to sell in country B. It becomes a choice that carries a cost without a global mandate.
manigandham 6y ago
> "Unless a corporation is doing something illegal, you have no right to tell them what to do and what to make" Exactly, legislation and legality is how we tell them what to do. > Your demands to have the government coerce them into creating open APIs would be just as outrageous in this scenario. I didn't demand govt-forced open APIs? Where did you come up with that? However right-to-repair and other freedoms and ownership over the hardware you purchase, especially when it's so critical to your life and centrally controlled, is worthwhile to pursue. > "giving the government this much power is shortsighted at best" Either the corporation or the government has the power. The challenge is finding the right balance, because neither should have complete authority.
- xvector 6y ago
  > Exactly, legislation and legality is how well tell them what to do. What legislation do you propose? > I didn't demand govt-forced open APIs? Where did you come up with that? OP’s comment, which you seem to be arguing in favor of. Apologies if I misinterpreted. > Either the corporation or the government has the power. Obviously. So long as there are anti-monopolistic practices in place, you can choose the corporation you want to interface with easily. Nothing is stopping OP from buying an Android phone, PinePhone, or Purism Librem 5. Governments are not something you can choose, not really, and giving them wholesale control of how corporations can create tech products is granting them an absurd level of power, especially when viable alternatives already exist on the free market.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Right-to-repair and freedom to install and operate apps without going through a single centrally-controlled app store. Here's a question: Should the wireless networks that your phone requires to function follow net neutrality? Why or why not?
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Apple is approaching a monopsony over phone profits. Given time it could hollow out the competition until there is no practical alternative.

themacguffinman 6y ago

It's not an illusion, "just don't buy it" would have prevented all of this but clearly the majority of consumers don't agree with you. Whether or not you think it's a good outcome, consumers have largely chosen to buy or use the stuff that these companies make. Consumers have always come first, and they've already spoken.

bmitc 6y ago
Most consumers do not understand the repercussions nor do they understand the power these companies can weld, so you can't say they have spoken.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  And I say they do, they don't just don't value it as highly as you do. It's awfully convenient to blindly assert that people can't be trusted to make their own choices, especially when the proposed solution is take away their choice with government regulation.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    How is their choice being taken away? They would only be gaining more freedom and control over their devices, not losing anything.
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      You know, it is possible that many people like Facebook as it is today considering that it's the most popular social network in the world. I'm also really curious what additional freedom and control over their devices consumers would gain from this antitrust suit given that no one is coerced into using Facebook (or Instagram, WhatsApp etc) and Facebook doesn't even make the devices that run those apps.
      - manigandham 6y ago

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

> Consumers should come first before massive corporations. No one can come first. If the terms aren’t mutually agreeable, the other will not participate in a transaction. They don’t have to make things to sell you just like you don’t have to buy from them. It can’t work any other way.

throwaway122378 6y ago
Eventually when an individual’s access to basic human rights are controlled by products made by a single corporation, human rights can come first.
manigandham 6y ago
Yes, consumers and society come first before the corporations that serve them. The corporations only exist to provide, only survive because they do. Free markets and capitalism are great, the best system we have, but there are still guardrails to ensure proper behavior and mitigate harm. This is the problem being discussed. The balance in recent times is completely off with these massive software/internet companies that control so much of our lives with little oversight or accountability. This is what people are arguing against, and I believe you would agree with that.