7 ms·

This is a false dichotomy that both pro-government and pro-corporate people fall into. Whether Apple or "Our Government", we shouldn't be giving this much power

This is a false dichotomy that both pro-government and pro-corporate people fall into. Whether Apple or "Our Government", we shouldn't be giving this much power to institutions. > But even so, what are we supposed to do? Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings. Stop putting convenience above principles. Refuse to pay/subscribe/accept any terms that are clearly not in your best interest. You don't need Big Government to do that. You don't even need to be part of a mobilized group. It's in your hands and every individual can choose for themselves. Let's take responsibility for our own actions and stop using the vices/failings of others to excuse ourselves to do the same.

Hokusai 6y ago
> You don't need Big Government to do that. Regulations are there tools that citizens have to reign in corporate behavior. 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations. > Vote with your wallet. Yes. And also vote with your ballots, one person one vote triumphs one dollar one vote if you want freedom.
- rglullis 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25330764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25330764
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  > 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations. This is completely reductionist, and completely uninformed. Banks, as an easy counter example to your worldview, don't have armies of third party regulators, corporate compliance staff, and auditors because they hate regulation. They love big government. It acts as a barrier to entry for them, because they already have the 10,000 person department ready to modify procedures and legal documents to comply with the next set of regulations while the little banks drown. Regulators frequently dine with top bank executives, but I can assure you they aren't dining with the citizenry or your local regional bank. Every amount of extra regulation just increases tyranny. It makes the American dream more untenable. I want people to succeed and not rely on giant mega corporations for their well being and wealth generation. You can rightly claim that I'm an anti-regulation lobbying entity in this regard, if you wish.
  - mrandish 6y ago
    +1 for paying attention in Econ 101 (and posting a POV that's probably more controversial these days than it should be).
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    Strong banking regulations is necessary to ensure that people trust the banks, and the banks don't misuse the fund you deposit with them. The collapse of some banks in US and India due to lax oversight, greed and corruption, in the last 2 decades is strong proof of this.
    - Hokusai 6y ago
      > due to lax oversight That is an important point. Not only realisations are needed, regulations need to be enforced if we expect the banking system to work.
the_other 6y ago
"Stop consuming... " isn't enough. You also have to do some of the work needed for the other side of "vote with your wallet". "Vote" for the system/product/method you wish to see. This might include building it yourself, using crowdfunding/micropayments for journalists/politicians/artists you trust/follow.
- rglullis 6y ago
  Agreed. "Vote with your wallet" does not exclude the idea of being an investor or sponsor of better alternatives.
  - jerf 6y ago
    I would also add that nobody saying "vote with your wallet" necessarily means it to be the only action you take. It's more a bare minimum. If you're inclined to moan about how awful something is, but you're still paying $5/month for it, it kinda bounds how awful it must be in practice. If it's that bad, stop paying them, as a bare minimum, not as an exclusive remedy. (Exceptions for monopolies like local internet or other situation where there are considerations strongly forcing you into a particular contract. Some exception for oligarchic situations where everyone has the bad terms... but only some. If it didn't even exist 20 years ago, you don't "need" it.)
LaGrange 6y ago
> You don't need Big Government to do that. Apple is big government, just not one you elected. >> But even so, what are we supposed to do? >Vote with your wallet. LMAO.
AlexandrB 6y ago
> Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings. This is... impossible. Ignoring the amount of time I would sink into researching every eventuality for a given service (how do you find out what the unsubscribe flow is for a site before you subscribe to it?). Some "services" have their hooks in just about everything. Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet.
- rglullis 6y ago
  This is quite a strawman. It might be "impossible" to do everything at once, but there is nothing stopping you from taking steps in that direction, and the more people taking those steps with you the stronger the market forces will force the companies to provide the things that you do want. Not signing up to the NYT is a choice. Not buying from Apple and all their locked down systems is a choice. Not signing up for any subscription service that has DRM is a choice. Having an ad-blocker to fight surveillance capitalism is a choice. Adopting and promoting alternatives to every "free" offering from Google is a choice, even if they are of inferior quality. Putting your money where your mouth is and supporting the development of better alternatives for whatever comes from FAANG is also a choice. If you are doing all of that, then maybe you will be entitled to complain. But I am sure you have a lot of veggies to eat before that.
- shrimp_emoji 6y ago
  >Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet. I avoid Google Analytics all the time. It's called NoScript. c: It actually has no effect on site functionality, either. ReCaptcha's a different story though. :c
webmobdev 6y ago
> we shouldn't be giving this much power to institutions. In a democracy, the government derives power from us, the people. In a good and functioning democracy there exists other democratic institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them. "Vote with your wallet" is a disingenuous argument were all the corporates work together like a cartel towards a particular business model that maximises profit for them to the detriment of us consumers. Regulations that bind all business to certain rules and standard also benefit the businesses as it creates a level playing field for them too. (But obviously large corporates at the top don't want a level playing field).
- rglullis 6y ago
  > In a good and functioning democracy (...) institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them. This is the idealistic view. In the real world we have people in power, with their own personal interests, with institutions that are ever more distant from the people and with ever less consequences to face when they do wrong. The one exception is perhaps Switzerland, and this would be more due to how local governments and cantons prevail over national leaders. The institutions are small and limited in reach. Aside from them, every model (US, the EU, China, Russian) relies on over-centralization and ever-expanding reach of the institutions and the consequential subversion of said institutions to the favor of interest groups. So, unless you are Swiss I really don't have any reason to believe you actually have any power over the government, and I really don't believe you should be defending to give them even more power and attributions. > maximises profit to the detriment of consumers Last I checked, no one forced me to buy anything from Apple. I don't think closed systems are beneficial for me, so I don't buy them. No one forced me to buy anything from Google, either. No one forced me to buy a car or to live in an expensive metro area or even check any trendy bar with overpriced drinks. No one forced me to buy home appliances that can I not repair. "Well, where I live there is only one internet provider, so I am forced to use it". No, you are not. It's just that the inconvenience of not having internet at home outweighs your willingness to get your community and put together an alternative. Also, more likely than not, the reason that there is no alternative is due to REGULATIONS that lobbyists from big telco managed to pass so that they have an advantage. To truly believe that "regulations creates a level-playing field" is beyond naive. It's borderline harmful to you and for society at large.
varispeed 6y ago
You stand no chance against multi billion big corporation that can own you. It's the level of influence needed that only government can attain. The trouble is our corruption laws are so weak, you can just call it lobbying and be on your way to money town. It must be a combination of voting with your wallet and making your local politicians aware of the issues you are facing. More people put pressure the more will get done. You know if people are not doing anything, then in their mind problem is not serious.

Hokusai 6y ago

> You don't need Big Government to do that. Regulations are there tools that citizens have to reign in corporate behavior. 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations. > Vote with your wallet. Yes. And also vote with your ballots, one person one vote triumphs one dollar one vote if you want freedom.

rglullis 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25330764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25330764
dimitrios1 6y ago
> 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations. This is completely reductionist, and completely uninformed. Banks, as an easy counter example to your worldview, don't have armies of third party regulators, corporate compliance staff, and auditors because they hate regulation. They love big government. It acts as a barrier to entry for them, because they already have the 10,000 person department ready to modify procedures and legal documents to comply with the next set of regulations while the little banks drown. Regulators frequently dine with top bank executives, but I can assure you they aren't dining with the citizenry or your local regional bank. Every amount of extra regulation just increases tyranny. It makes the American dream more untenable. I want people to succeed and not rely on giant mega corporations for their well being and wealth generation. You can rightly claim that I'm an anti-regulation lobbying entity in this regard, if you wish.
- mrandish 6y ago
  +1 for paying attention in Econ 101 (and posting a POV that's probably more controversial these days than it should be).
- webmobdev 6y ago
  Strong banking regulations is necessary to ensure that people trust the banks, and the banks don't misuse the fund you deposit with them. The collapse of some banks in US and India due to lax oversight, greed and corruption, in the last 2 decades is strong proof of this.
  - Hokusai 6y ago
    > due to lax oversight That is an important point. Not only realisations are needed, regulations need to be enforced if we expect the banking system to work.

the_other 6y ago

"Stop consuming... " isn't enough. You also have to do some of the work needed for the other side of "vote with your wallet". "Vote" for the system/product/method you wish to see. This might include building it yourself, using crowdfunding/micropayments for journalists/politicians/artists you trust/follow.

rglullis 6y ago
Agreed. "Vote with your wallet" does not exclude the idea of being an investor or sponsor of better alternatives.
- jerf 6y ago
  I would also add that nobody saying "vote with your wallet" necessarily means it to be the only action you take. It's more a bare minimum. If you're inclined to moan about how awful something is, but you're still paying $5/month for it, it kinda bounds how awful it must be in practice. If it's that bad, stop paying them, as a bare minimum, not as an exclusive remedy. (Exceptions for monopolies like local internet or other situation where there are considerations strongly forcing you into a particular contract. Some exception for oligarchic situations where everyone has the bad terms... but only some. If it didn't even exist 20 years ago, you don't "need" it.)

LaGrange 6y ago

> You don't need Big Government to do that. Apple is big government, just not one you elected. >> But even so, what are we supposed to do? >Vote with your wallet. LMAO.

AlexandrB 6y ago

> Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings. This is... impossible. Ignoring the amount of time I would sink into researching every eventuality for a given service (how do you find out what the unsubscribe flow is for a site before you subscribe to it?). Some "services" have their hooks in just about everything. Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet.

rglullis 6y ago
This is quite a strawman. It might be "impossible" to do everything at once, but there is nothing stopping you from taking steps in that direction, and the more people taking those steps with you the stronger the market forces will force the companies to provide the things that you do want. Not signing up to the NYT is a choice. Not buying from Apple and all their locked down systems is a choice. Not signing up for any subscription service that has DRM is a choice. Having an ad-blocker to fight surveillance capitalism is a choice. Adopting and promoting alternatives to every "free" offering from Google is a choice, even if they are of inferior quality. Putting your money where your mouth is and supporting the development of better alternatives for whatever comes from FAANG is also a choice. If you are doing all of that, then maybe you will be entitled to complain. But I am sure you have a lot of veggies to eat before that.
shrimp_emoji 6y ago
>Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet. I avoid Google Analytics all the time. It's called NoScript. c: It actually has no effect on site functionality, either. ReCaptcha's a different story though. :c

webmobdev 6y ago

> we shouldn't be giving this much power to institutions. In a democracy, the government derives power from us, the people. In a good and functioning democracy there exists other democratic institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them. "Vote with your wallet" is a disingenuous argument were all the corporates work together like a cartel towards a particular business model that maximises profit for them to the detriment of us consumers. Regulations that bind all business to certain rules and standard also benefit the businesses as it creates a level playing field for them too. (But obviously large corporates at the top don't want a level playing field).

rglullis 6y ago
> In a good and functioning democracy (...) institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them. This is the idealistic view. In the real world we have people in power, with their own personal interests, with institutions that are ever more distant from the people and with ever less consequences to face when they do wrong. The one exception is perhaps Switzerland, and this would be more due to how local governments and cantons prevail over national leaders. The institutions are small and limited in reach. Aside from them, every model (US, the EU, China, Russian) relies on over-centralization and ever-expanding reach of the institutions and the consequential subversion of said institutions to the favor of interest groups. So, unless you are Swiss I really don't have any reason to believe you actually have any power over the government, and I really don't believe you should be defending to give them even more power and attributions. > maximises profit to the detriment of consumers Last I checked, no one forced me to buy anything from Apple. I don't think closed systems are beneficial for me, so I don't buy them. No one forced me to buy anything from Google, either. No one forced me to buy a car or to live in an expensive metro area or even check any trendy bar with overpriced drinks. No one forced me to buy home appliances that can I not repair. "Well, where I live there is only one internet provider, so I am forced to use it". No, you are not. It's just that the inconvenience of not having internet at home outweighs your willingness to get your community and put together an alternative. Also, more likely than not, the reason that there is no alternative is due to REGULATIONS that lobbyists from big telco managed to pass so that they have an advantage. To truly believe that "regulations creates a level-playing field" is beyond naive. It's borderline harmful to you and for society at large.

varispeed 6y ago

You stand no chance against multi billion big corporation that can own you. It's the level of influence needed that only government can attain. The trouble is our corruption laws are so weak, you can just call it lobbying and be on your way to money town. It must be a combination of voting with your wallet and making your local politicians aware of the issues you are facing. More people put pressure the more will get done. You know if people are not doing anything, then in their mind problem is not serious.