3 ms·

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the issue should focus on the effect a monopolistic company has on competition and new entrants. If a company

by lwhi 5y ago

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the issue should focus on the effect a monopolistic company has on competition and new entrants. If a company is in the sights of Facebook, and could be acquired .. they should stand to benefit from any legislation put in place.

Ericson2314 5y ago
> they should stand to benefit from any legislation put in place. Keep in mind many startups don't want to do the work of becoming an actual sustainable company, and rather have the higher values of the acquisition market. Also keep in mind that a more fragmented digital ads market without the total surveillance from monopolies might not be very profitable at all. I don't think a disaggregated private sector is capable an entirely filling big tech's vacuum. I also don't think that is a reason not to break up big tech. The fact is software wants to be free, and free software wants to be funded by something other than profits. But I don't think our courts or legislatures are willing to grapple with this truth. And so we will waffle and keep the monopolies intact.
- lwhi 5y ago
  I think you're setting two very different concepts at odds with each other Many startups aim to become acquired, because there is no alternative. It's the only viable route to success. Continue 'feeding the beast'. This isn't a desirable scenario though .. we all know that there are political, social and economic consequences to allowing monopolistic behaviour to carry on unchecked. The best reason for introducing legislation is to improve life for a huge amount of people. -- > Also keep in mind that a more fragmented digital ads market without the total surveillance from monopolies might not be very profitable at all. Then we should fully do away with those markets. Regulation sets a bar. It stops the worst problems associated with unregulated capitalism from taking root and prospering. -- > I don't think a disaggregated private sector is capable an entirely filling big tech's vacuum. I also don't think that is a reason not to break up big tech. I agree, it's not a reason to _not_ break it up. I also agree it won't be business as usual; nor should it be. There's a pragmatism to open standards and free software that works well with capitalism. We will need to embrace open standards to provide interoperability between products once they're split.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    > This isn't a desirable scenario though To some founders, maybe? But the fact is fewer acquisitions will mean more outright failures, if also more a few massive successes. Investors might not like that. It will take time also for the number of starts to break through and chip away at monopolization, until that happens, we have a "worst of both worlds" where monopolies still crush you but you also can't sell out. That will definitely not be popular. > Then we should fully do away with those markets. I fully agree, but so many popular things are dependent on advertising, I worry the politicians have no guts here. If people just loose all their free entertainment heads will roll. I think the best way to fund art / entertainment is UBI and crowdfunding, but that's a massive shift that, again, takes a lot of guts. > I also agree it won't be business as usual; nor should it be. :) > There's a pragmatism to open standards and free software that works well with capitalism. Actually I think those have a very awkward relationship with Capitalism. On one hand, sharing ideas is clearly more efficient, on the other hand, they undermine the competition that makes capitalism work. There was a lot more systems innovation in non-micro-computers before Unix, by virtue AT&T limited in how they were allowed to capture the value, predominated. Then Linux also wiped out all the proprietary Unixes to a large extent. The biggest thing attacking the stagnation of OSe might be the the increasingly bespoke cloud platforms. So basically FOSS gets in a "no profit to be found here" rut in a sub-sector, until a bunch of proprietary things the exist mainly but to increase switching costs get us back to "proprietary diversity", and the process repeats. A stupid take mean anti-trust means banning FOSS too, kind of like how the sherman anti-trust act was used against unions. A better take might be we need something other than competition for profits to push FOSS forward.

by lwhi 5y ago

Ericson2314 5y ago

> they should stand to benefit from any legislation put in place. Keep in mind many startups don't want to do the work of becoming an actual sustainable company, and rather have the higher values of the acquisition market. Also keep in mind that a more fragmented digital ads market without the total surveillance from monopolies might not be very profitable at all. I don't think a disaggregated private sector is capable an entirely filling big tech's vacuum. I also don't think that is a reason not to break up big tech. The fact is software wants to be free, and free software wants to be funded by something other than profits. But I don't think our courts or legislatures are willing to grapple with this truth. And so we will waffle and keep the monopolies intact.

lwhi 5y ago
I think you're setting two very different concepts at odds with each other Many startups aim to become acquired, because there is no alternative. It's the only viable route to success. Continue 'feeding the beast'. This isn't a desirable scenario though .. we all know that there are political, social and economic consequences to allowing monopolistic behaviour to carry on unchecked. The best reason for introducing legislation is to improve life for a huge amount of people. -- > Also keep in mind that a more fragmented digital ads market without the total surveillance from monopolies might not be very profitable at all. Then we should fully do away with those markets. Regulation sets a bar. It stops the worst problems associated with unregulated capitalism from taking root and prospering. -- > I don't think a disaggregated private sector is capable an entirely filling big tech's vacuum. I also don't think that is a reason not to break up big tech. I agree, it's not a reason to _not_ break it up. I also agree it won't be business as usual; nor should it be. There's a pragmatism to open standards and free software that works well with capitalism. We will need to embrace open standards to provide interoperability between products once they're split.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  > This isn't a desirable scenario though To some founders, maybe? But the fact is fewer acquisitions will mean more outright failures, if also more a few massive successes. Investors might not like that. It will take time also for the number of starts to break through and chip away at monopolization, until that happens, we have a "worst of both worlds" where monopolies still crush you but you also can't sell out. That will definitely not be popular. > Then we should fully do away with those markets. I fully agree, but so many popular things are dependent on advertising, I worry the politicians have no guts here. If people just loose all their free entertainment heads will roll. I think the best way to fund art / entertainment is UBI and crowdfunding, but that's a massive shift that, again, takes a lot of guts. > I also agree it won't be business as usual; nor should it be. :) > There's a pragmatism to open standards and free software that works well with capitalism. Actually I think those have a very awkward relationship with Capitalism. On one hand, sharing ideas is clearly more efficient, on the other hand, they undermine the competition that makes capitalism work. There was a lot more systems innovation in non-micro-computers before Unix, by virtue AT&T limited in how they were allowed to capture the value, predominated. Then Linux also wiped out all the proprietary Unixes to a large extent. The biggest thing attacking the stagnation of OSe might be the the increasingly bespoke cloud platforms. So basically FOSS gets in a "no profit to be found here" rut in a sub-sector, until a bunch of proprietary things the exist mainly but to increase switching costs get us back to "proprietary diversity", and the process repeats. A stupid take mean anti-trust means banning FOSS too, kind of like how the sherman anti-trust act was used against unions. A better take might be we need something other than competition for profits to push FOSS forward.