3 ms·

Could you clarify a bit more on these proposals? > * Break them up... How do you ensure that all companies in a vertical will remain small? What would the legi

Could you clarify a bit more on these proposals? > * Break them up... How do you ensure that all companies in a vertical will remain small? What would the legislation look like? The internet certainly enables more 'winner takes all' type markets, so not sure how you consistently keep social networks small when everyone will naturally gravitate to those that have the best UX + network effects (there are surely other variables, just listing 2 as an example) > * Remove safe harbor provisions... What does this mean? How are algorithmic content feeds currently treated relative to non-algorithmic content feeds? How would you target the legislation to not have externalities? > * Pass a transaction tax Never heard of this, what does this mean? Who is getting taxed? Advertisers? Publishers? Website visitors? How will your proposal change incentives? What's your take on how smaller news sites are dependent on the ad model and that ad models promote websites that are open to more people (as opposed to subscription businesses which incentivize optimizing for your paying customers and giving them exactly what they want)

arrosenberg 6y ago
1. Not really sure I agree about "winner takes all" - Facebook bought IG, Whatsapp and dozens of other companies. That's not winning based off product superiority - it's winning based off access to financing. There are plenty of ways to stop companies from ever reaching that size - Limit M&A, limit the amount of hot money used to finance growth ahead of revenue, and impose stricter regulations on larger companies - I'm talking investigating violations and prosecuting civilly and criminally - no compliance BS. 2. I'm not going to explain the Safe Harbor provision to you. Look it up. We already have externalities - removing algorithmic feeds would take (e.g. Facebook) back to where it was in the late 2000s, where users were in control of the content they saw. The only negative externality is that Facebook and other companies would make less money of targeted ads. 3. You've never heard of a transaction tax? I find that hard to believe. Why don't you think about other times you've paid tax on a transaction, and then maybe you can come up with answers to the rest of your questions.
- FFRefresh 6y ago
  1. Facebook already had 1 billion MAU in 2012, the year it acquired Instagram. How would you limit M&A? Won't that really hurt the startup ecosystem if you use the state to close off one of the paths to an exit? How do you propose limiting 'hot money' to finance growth ahead of revenue? Are you proposing getting rid of venture capital? 2. I'm familiar with safe harbor provisions, but am asking you for more specifics. Many sites/app personalize content (aka algorithmic content feeds) for the user, based off of what will drive engagement. I understand you dislike Facebook, but if you attack Facebook for personalization, how do you not hurt everybody else that is trying to cater experiences to what their users are likely to want? 3. What's the transaction in your proposal? Who is getting taxed? There are multiple actors in the advertising system, from advertisers to ad networks to publishers to website visitors. Your glib response is a signal to me that perhaps you haven't had much in the weeds exposure to how advertising functions, and may be operating from more of a mainstream mood affiliation perspective. Which is fine, but you answered a question to someone's query for 'good ideas' for regulation.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    1. Without serious competition we will never know if their waning mainstream popularity would have diminished their financial success. Limit M&A by denying acquisitions that would consolidate markets, like we did for a long time in this country. You don’t have to hurt startups if you have a little bit of creativity. Create different tiers of review, etc. You cut down on hot money by reinstating the firewall between commercial banking/insurance and investment banking. It’s not getting rid of venture capital, but it does restrict the amount of money that can be levered by them. 2. Im not worried about hurting businesses that focus on algorithmic content. If their algorithms are feeding right wing propaganda to impressionable people I want them to go out of business. 3. An ad auction is no different than any other financial contract that gets sold on an exchange. The buyer sells a contract for placement, which an advertiser buys in exchange for a promise to pay. You levy a tax on this transaction to make the overall cost of doing it more expensive and to offset the cost of externalities created. I’ve thought through it plenty, but since it doesn’t feel like you aren’t asking questions in good faith or doing the least bit of research, I’m not going to bother taking you particularly serious.

arrosenberg 6y ago

1. Not really sure I agree about "winner takes all" - Facebook bought IG, Whatsapp and dozens of other companies. That's not winning based off product superiority - it's winning based off access to financing. There are plenty of ways to stop companies from ever reaching that size - Limit M&A, limit the amount of hot money used to finance growth ahead of revenue, and impose stricter regulations on larger companies - I'm talking investigating violations and prosecuting civilly and criminally - no compliance BS. 2. I'm not going to explain the Safe Harbor provision to you. Look it up. We already have externalities - removing algorithmic feeds would take (e.g. Facebook) back to where it was in the late 2000s, where users were in control of the content they saw. The only negative externality is that Facebook and other companies would make less money of targeted ads. 3. You've never heard of a transaction tax? I find that hard to believe. Why don't you think about other times you've paid tax on a transaction, and then maybe you can come up with answers to the rest of your questions.

FFRefresh 6y ago
1. Facebook already had 1 billion MAU in 2012, the year it acquired Instagram. How would you limit M&A? Won't that really hurt the startup ecosystem if you use the state to close off one of the paths to an exit? How do you propose limiting 'hot money' to finance growth ahead of revenue? Are you proposing getting rid of venture capital? 2. I'm familiar with safe harbor provisions, but am asking you for more specifics. Many sites/app personalize content (aka algorithmic content feeds) for the user, based off of what will drive engagement. I understand you dislike Facebook, but if you attack Facebook for personalization, how do you not hurt everybody else that is trying to cater experiences to what their users are likely to want? 3. What's the transaction in your proposal? Who is getting taxed? There are multiple actors in the advertising system, from advertisers to ad networks to publishers to website visitors. Your glib response is a signal to me that perhaps you haven't had much in the weeds exposure to how advertising functions, and may be operating from more of a mainstream mood affiliation perspective. Which is fine, but you answered a question to someone's query for 'good ideas' for regulation.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  1. Without serious competition we will never know if their waning mainstream popularity would have diminished their financial success. Limit M&A by denying acquisitions that would consolidate markets, like we did for a long time in this country. You don’t have to hurt startups if you have a little bit of creativity. Create different tiers of review, etc. You cut down on hot money by reinstating the firewall between commercial banking/insurance and investment banking. It’s not getting rid of venture capital, but it does restrict the amount of money that can be levered by them. 2. Im not worried about hurting businesses that focus on algorithmic content. If their algorithms are feeding right wing propaganda to impressionable people I want them to go out of business. 3. An ad auction is no different than any other financial contract that gets sold on an exchange. The buyer sells a contract for placement, which an advertiser buys in exchange for a promise to pay. You levy a tax on this transaction to make the overall cost of doing it more expensive and to offset the cost of externalities created. I’ve thought through it plenty, but since it doesn’t feel like you aren’t asking questions in good faith or doing the least bit of research, I’m not going to bother taking you particularly serious.