3 ms·

> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them. If those rules are onerous, that might create some organic pressure to split

> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them. If those rules are onerous, that might create some organic pressure to split and/or help smaller incumbents compete. What do we win here? To me it seems that letting big companies get as big as they can allows them to use economies of scale to provide quality services cheaply to all of us. Search is a prime example here, only Google seems to be able to do it as well as they do. Many others have tried and failed. Isn't the benefit of cheap/free services far outweighed by whatever arbitrary "abuses" that are alleged to have been perpetrated? Shouldn't our attitude be primarily of bewildered amazement at the status quo instead of attempting to micromanage how Google uses the massive, amazingly positive platform it built?

asddubs 5y ago
>What do we win here? a more balanced power dynamic
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Between who? And at the expense of cheap, readily available, quality services?
  - asddubs 5y ago
    between regular people and companies. I don't think it has to come at the expense of those things, a company doesn't have to be the size and scope of google to be efficient.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      Companies are made up of regular people, there is no clear distinction between the two. Efficiency is a spectrum, the more efficient a company, the more the poorest of us benefit from cheaper services. Capping efficiency punishes everyone.
      - asddubs 5y ago
        armies are also made up of regular people, that doesn't mean they're incapable of doing harm on a scale beyond the individual. you're also falsely equating size and efficiency
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        And once these regular people decide in numbers that they are tired, miss their wives, and want to go home; it goes disastrously for the commanders who have planned otherwise. For a particularly famous example see Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. I'm not equating size and efficiency. I'm saying a combination of the two represents the optimal outcome for everyone. In a permissive economy, large, inefficient companies are vulnerable to competition, and tend towards failure.
Barrin92 5y ago
>Isn't the benefit of cheap/free services far outweighed by whatever arbitrary "abuses" that are alleged to have been perpetrated? No, because pluralism and a robust and diverse ecosystem is more important than cheap shit. Handing effectively entire control over what is visible on the internet to one company is anti-democratic madness. You're basically pulling a "but Mussolini made the trains run on time"
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I'm not, I'm suggesting that an inclusive, permissive economy is the best way to fight scarcity. Scarcity, though you may not recall, was a big deal. Its opposite is "cheap shit" which is exactly what I'm advocating for as top priority. In this case, cheap (free) access to high quality internet services for everyone with an unfiltered connection. Less permissive economic systems continue to fail spectacularly. No one is "handing" any control of anything, control is precariously maintained by staying ahead of competition. Comparing Google to a dictator is ridiculous - who is Google murdering by deprioritizing someone's service on its platform?

asddubs 5y ago

>What do we win here? a more balanced power dynamic

thegrimmest 5y ago
Between who? And at the expense of cheap, readily available, quality services?
- asddubs 5y ago
  between regular people and companies. I don't think it has to come at the expense of those things, a company doesn't have to be the size and scope of google to be efficient.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Companies are made up of regular people, there is no clear distinction between the two. Efficiency is a spectrum, the more efficient a company, the more the poorest of us benefit from cheaper services. Capping efficiency punishes everyone.
    - asddubs 5y ago
      armies are also made up of regular people, that doesn't mean they're incapable of doing harm on a scale beyond the individual. you're also falsely equating size and efficiency
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        And once these regular people decide in numbers that they are tired, miss their wives, and want to go home; it goes disastrously for the commanders who have planned otherwise. For a particularly famous example see Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. I'm not equating size and efficiency. I'm saying a combination of the two represents the optimal outcome for everyone. In a permissive economy, large, inefficient companies are vulnerable to competition, and tend towards failure.

Barrin92 5y ago

>Isn't the benefit of cheap/free services far outweighed by whatever arbitrary "abuses" that are alleged to have been perpetrated? No, because pluralism and a robust and diverse ecosystem is more important than cheap shit. Handing effectively entire control over what is visible on the internet to one company is anti-democratic madness. You're basically pulling a "but Mussolini made the trains run on time"

thegrimmest 5y ago
I'm not, I'm suggesting that an inclusive, permissive economy is the best way to fight scarcity. Scarcity, though you may not recall, was a big deal. Its opposite is "cheap shit" which is exactly what I'm advocating for as top priority. In this case, cheap (free) access to high quality internet services for everyone with an unfiltered connection. Less permissive economic systems continue to fail spectacularly. No one is "handing" any control of anything, control is precariously maintained by staying ahead of competition. Comparing Google to a dictator is ridiculous - who is Google murdering by deprioritizing someone's service on its platform?