3 ms·

Losing control is what big social wants. The more they are regulated, the more intimate they are with the government, the safer and more entrenched their status

Losing control is what big social wants. The more they are regulated, the more intimate they are with the government, the safer and more entrenched their status. They already enjoy network effects and lock-in of their users; more rules widen the moat around the established players who got huge in the early unregulated days.

devoutsalsa 5y ago
And the more compliance becomes a cost, the harder it is for underfunded upstarts to sneak in & grab marketshare.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Saying things like "big social" does not make your argument more persuasive. It just makes you sound like part of the lunatic fringe. It also leaves people like me rather confused about what your point was in the first sentence.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  So it’s proper behavior for you to go around calling names because you’re confused? Get a grip.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  I don't think "big social" is a term used by any group of people, including people you disagree with. I think it's a neologism and it's a comprehensible one. I interpret it as a big business doing social media.
the_optimist 5y ago
Certainly not all forms of regulation result in regulatory capture. Simply following this German model where Google/Youtube isn't allowed to censor certain ideas doesn't lend itself to regulatory capture.
- rocqua 5y ago
  The advantage is not just 'regulatory capture'. There is also an inherent moat in being a regulated industry. Any new players will need to figure out the regulations, compliance, licenses and pitfalls before they can start to challenge you. That is a lot of upfront costs that will take a long time to recoup. Hence helping the old players remain entrenched.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    I completely agree with this. I'd even argue that regulatory obligations should lapse without explicitly renewal. Nonetheless, particularly on elements of values and principles: it is possible to create bright-line, lightweight, plain-English regulation. See the US Bill of Rights as an example. Let specific instances be litigated in the future, rather than specify all edge cases up front.

devoutsalsa 5y ago

And the more compliance becomes a cost, the harder it is for underfunded upstarts to sneak in & grab marketshare.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Saying things like "big social" does not make your argument more persuasive. It just makes you sound like part of the lunatic fringe. It also leaves people like me rather confused about what your point was in the first sentence.

imwillofficial 5y ago
So it’s proper behavior for you to go around calling names because you’re confused? Get a grip.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I don't think "big social" is a term used by any group of people, including people you disagree with. I think it's a neologism and it's a comprehensible one. I interpret it as a big business doing social media.

the_optimist 5y ago

Certainly not all forms of regulation result in regulatory capture. Simply following this German model where Google/Youtube isn't allowed to censor certain ideas doesn't lend itself to regulatory capture.

rocqua 5y ago
The advantage is not just 'regulatory capture'. There is also an inherent moat in being a regulated industry. Any new players will need to figure out the regulations, compliance, licenses and pitfalls before they can start to challenge you. That is a lot of upfront costs that will take a long time to recoup. Hence helping the old players remain entrenched.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  I completely agree with this. I'd even argue that regulatory obligations should lapse without explicitly renewal. Nonetheless, particularly on elements of values and principles: it is possible to create bright-line, lightweight, plain-English regulation. See the US Bill of Rights as an example. Let specific instances be litigated in the future, rather than specify all edge cases up front.