3 ms·
> I want smaller companies, which don't abuse data, which don't sacrifice security for 'hypergrowth', who are able to moderate their content and comply with law
by didibus 6y ago
> I want smaller companies, which don't abuse data, which don't sacrifice security for 'hypergrowth', who are able to moderate their content and comply with laws rather than ignore them, and so on
Why would smaller companies be better positioned for those things?
- Barrin92 6y agobecause a larger number of smaller companies increases competition, meaning users can realistically leave, making firms accountable to their community (ask yourself why discourse on HN or a mastodon instance is more civil than on Facebook, for example). More human-scale size enables human content moderation. any given smaller company is non-essential, meaning it cannot challenge lawmakers on the grounds of being essential, or bully lawmakers into submission. Smallness also incentivises business models that aren't data-analytics driven because small companies simply lack huge pools of user-data, hopefully diminishing the toxic surveillance-capital model of predominantly large firms.
- cmarschner 6y agoThis doesn’t work when there are network effects. We had enough smaller social networks in Europe but they were all eventually subsumed by a US companies like fb, Twitter ir LinkedIn. Also, the US has 50% of the worldwide online advertisement market in a single cultural region.