4 ms·

Your statement is true. Its also true that the tech market is too consolidated to be considered a free market.

by trident5000 6y ago

BitwiseFool 6y ago
I'm starting to think the "Free Market" doesn't exist and it's really just a platonic ideal.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Free markets exist when the DOJ does its job.
  - nextaccountic 6y ago
    Do you mean that the very existence of free markets depends on strict governmental regulation? Without state intervention, free market don't remain free on its own? So, what is free about free markets?
    - trident5000 6y ago
      The concept that the govt is a director of the free markets and ensure they remain competitive is older than years you have on this earth.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      This is how Adam Smith described free markets, potentially influenced by regulation to ensure monopolies and rent seeking didn't exist. In that framing, the market is free from economic privilege, and individual actors are free to compete on equal footing.
      - nextaccountic 6y ago
        Thanks, this makes sense. What confuses me is the overloading of "free market" to mean something opposed to government intervention.
        trident5000 6y ago
        Government set the rules in free markets. A free market is a competitive market with even rules for all participants.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Yes, lots of anti-regulation people have taken a specific brand of free-market capitalism (arguably even an extremist brand of laissez-faire free-market capitalism) and tried to make that the only "real" market economy. Free market socialism isn't a contradiction, despite what many would have you believe (think: worker owned co-operatives and nonprofits that compete in the broader market). Similarly, market economies need not be wholly unregulated to be good. And indeed, I think you'd be hard pressed to find mainstream economists who claim that worker safety regulations are bad (like, they might be able to point to particular regulations that are dumb, but there are many that are not).
    - jl2718 6y ago
      Seems like a general concept. The concept of government is actually a forceful limitation on the powers that would be exercised in a state of anarchy. Otherwise theres no distinction between ‘government’ run by a dictator, and anarchy with a singularly powerful individual. Of course the distinction can be rationalized away further in terms of collective power until the only thing left is a theocracy. But practically, .... actually I don’t know anymore.
throwaway189262 6y ago
True. But there's nothing stopping Parler from running their own servers either. There's many controversial physical businesses in the US that would have trouble renting. But nothing stops them from buying their own land. That's the issue with Parler hosting. With hosting, you're digitally renting.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  It's more complicated than that because other companies that aren't related to hosting decided to refuse service to Parler. Mastercard, Twilio, various Law Firms, and others. The truth is that running any service of scale requires dozens of other companies from other industries.
  - throwaway189262 6y ago
    True. And most companies would decide it wasn't economical to run such a controversial site at scale. But this is being painted as "monopolies against free speech", and it's not. There's hundreds, maybe thousands of hosting companies. At least dozens of ways to take payments. Thousands of law firms. I think everyone is in agreement that big tech has too much influence. But big tech isn't what's keeping Parler off the web. It's not "leftists" either. It's legal liability for things like the capital riots. Legal liability, aka the threat of government is what's keeping Parker offline. Not big tech. All the US companies are just falling in line, protecting themselves from lawsuits and expensive court cases
- trident5000 6y ago
  The biggest issue is really the app stores. If hosting keeps consolidating the way it is, it will be on par in future years. And the reason Parler didn't build its own servers is because its massively expensive to do so. So expensive that its a non-starter rather than an inconvenience. Giving preferential treatment to some startups but not others to cut the corner on hosting by dominant players which determines winners and losers is still not a free market.
  - deleted 6y ago
IOT_Apprentice 6y ago
Anyone with enough money can enter the market. Parler is funded by a billionaire. She just has to spend more of her money to compete or acquire what she needs.

Your statement is true. Its also true that the tech market is too consolidated to be considered a free market.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

I'm starting to think the "Free Market" doesn't exist and it's really just a platonic ideal.

trident5000 6y ago
Free markets exist when the DOJ does its job.
- nextaccountic 6y ago
  Do you mean that the very existence of free markets depends on strict governmental regulation? Without state intervention, free market don't remain free on its own? So, what is free about free markets?
  - trident5000 6y ago
    The concept that the govt is a director of the free markets and ensure they remain competitive is older than years you have on this earth.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    This is how Adam Smith described free markets, potentially influenced by regulation to ensure monopolies and rent seeking didn't exist. In that framing, the market is free from economic privilege, and individual actors are free to compete on equal footing.
    - nextaccountic 6y ago
      Thanks, this makes sense. What confuses me is the overloading of "free market" to mean something opposed to government intervention.
      - trident5000 6y ago
        Government set the rules in free markets. A free market is a competitive market with even rules for all participants.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Yes, lots of anti-regulation people have taken a specific brand of free-market capitalism (arguably even an extremist brand of laissez-faire free-market capitalism) and tried to make that the only "real" market economy. Free market socialism isn't a contradiction, despite what many would have you believe (think: worker owned co-operatives and nonprofits that compete in the broader market). Similarly, market economies need not be wholly unregulated to be good. And indeed, I think you'd be hard pressed to find mainstream economists who claim that worker safety regulations are bad (like, they might be able to point to particular regulations that are dumb, but there are many that are not).
  - jl2718 6y ago
    Seems like a general concept. The concept of government is actually a forceful limitation on the powers that would be exercised in a state of anarchy. Otherwise theres no distinction between ‘government’ run by a dictator, and anarchy with a singularly powerful individual. Of course the distinction can be rationalized away further in terms of collective power until the only thing left is a theocracy. But practically, .... actually I don’t know anymore.

throwaway189262 6y ago

True. But there's nothing stopping Parler from running their own servers either. There's many controversial physical businesses in the US that would have trouble renting. But nothing stops them from buying their own land. That's the issue with Parler hosting. With hosting, you're digitally renting.

BitwiseFool 6y ago
It's more complicated than that because other companies that aren't related to hosting decided to refuse service to Parler. Mastercard, Twilio, various Law Firms, and others. The truth is that running any service of scale requires dozens of other companies from other industries.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  True. And most companies would decide it wasn't economical to run such a controversial site at scale. But this is being painted as "monopolies against free speech", and it's not. There's hundreds, maybe thousands of hosting companies. At least dozens of ways to take payments. Thousands of law firms. I think everyone is in agreement that big tech has too much influence. But big tech isn't what's keeping Parler off the web. It's not "leftists" either. It's legal liability for things like the capital riots. Legal liability, aka the threat of government is what's keeping Parker offline. Not big tech. All the US companies are just falling in line, protecting themselves from lawsuits and expensive court cases
trident5000 6y ago
The biggest issue is really the app stores. If hosting keeps consolidating the way it is, it will be on par in future years. And the reason Parler didn't build its own servers is because its massively expensive to do so. So expensive that its a non-starter rather than an inconvenience. Giving preferential treatment to some startups but not others to cut the corner on hosting by dominant players which determines winners and losers is still not a free market.
- deleted 6y ago

IOT_Apprentice 6y ago

Anyone with enough money can enter the market. Parler is funded by a billionaire. She just has to spend more of her money to compete or acquire what she needs.