3 ms·

The clause only affects when the platform is big enough. It's a concentration of power in the hands of a few, certainly not the shareholders as you say in other

The clause only affects when the platform is big enough. It's a concentration of power in the hands of a few, certainly not the shareholders as you say in other comment. That such a concentration of power will be abused is almost a law of nature and so laws are put into place, the same way there are laws to prevent monopolies, to the detriment of shareholders also. You may think that this practicalities don't align with your ideology which is fine but as someone living in a country with multiple nation wide and regional state owned television channels I think they are terrible idea because they are extremely inefficient compared with private ones and also degenerate into propaganda machines for the political party in power, and the longer the same party is in power the worse.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
It's not an abuse of power if a) it's contractual and b) it's private property. One doesn't automatically become a victim, incapable of provide genuine consent to the terms offered, by virtue of the party offering the terms having a service that they badly want or need. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you to convince a court of that. Courts, under common law, will invalidate any contract where the parties to it did not provide informed and genuine consent to the terms contained in it. Resorting to legislative intervention suggests lacking the confidence in the validity of the allegations that premise it to use the judicial free market track. >>as someone living in a country with multiple nation wide and regional state owned television channels I think they are terrible idea because they are extremely inefficient compared with private ones and also degenerate into propaganda machines for the political party in power, and the longer the same party is in power the worse. Two points: a) you think the polity is incapable of managing large organizatons competently enough to compete with shareholder-run private enterprises, yet you think this same polity can craft effective cookie-cutter rules that will affect millions of interactions a day. It's not a coherent model of the world. b) the state is not limited to organizations under its direct management to support its policies. As I explained in a response to a sibling comment of yours, the state could still tap market forces to bring about public squares that abide with its guidelines, by providing subsidies to private parties developing such platforms, in exchange for the parties entering into an irrevocable covenant that requires them to follow the state's rules. Yet another option would be the state funding decentralized open-source protocols that are capable of entirely replacing centralized parties in many markets. The state, being publicly funded, is the only entity capable of cost-effectively funding non-profit initiatives like this that produce public goods. My larger point is that the state should not be monopolizing industries. It should provide alternatives to the private options. If it fails, the public still has the private options. If it succeeds, it did so by providing an option superior to those provided by the private sector. This imposes accountability on the state, by leaving it with competitors to act as a yardstick, while ensuring its interventions only impact the market to the extent that they improve it.
- linspace 5y ago
  I do think the state is capable of managing very large organizations, like public education, health, infrastructure... And the political party in charge may obtain votes by doing a good work. But in the case of the media I think interests are not aligned. I think putting in place laws to regulate private companies is the lesser of two evils. In Spain at least there are lots of instances of courts overturning contracts, the most famous ones maybe related to mortgage conditions. I'm not sure if this is good or not in the long term, but it's the case.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    I would submit that any large organization, whether it's public education, health or infrastructure, can be heavily abused for political gain like providing patronage opportunities. The Japanese infrastructure slush funds are a classic example of that. And I would also submit that state intervention in healthcare and education has been a dramatic failure, with costs in these two sectors skyrocketing over the period in which the state expanded its role in them. >>In Spain at least there are lots of instances of courts overturning contracts, the most famous ones maybe related to mortgage conditions. I'm not sure if this is good or not in the long term, but it's the case. If a court overturns a contract, that is fine. One of the roles of the state, in a free society, is to rule on contracts via its courts, and invalidate those that do not meet the bar for consent. But legislative bodies do not engage in the same impartial and deliberative process as courts so they are not the proper venue through which to restrict private interactions.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

It's not an abuse of power if a) it's contractual and b) it's private property. One doesn't automatically become a victim, incapable of provide genuine consent to the terms offered, by virtue of the party offering the terms having a service that they badly want or need. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you to convince a court of that. Courts, under common law, will invalidate any contract where the parties to it did not provide informed and genuine consent to the terms contained in it. Resorting to legislative intervention suggests lacking the confidence in the validity of the allegations that premise it to use the judicial free market track. >>as someone living in a country with multiple nation wide and regional state owned television channels I think they are terrible idea because they are extremely inefficient compared with private ones and also degenerate into propaganda machines for the political party in power, and the longer the same party is in power the worse. Two points: a) you think the polity is incapable of managing large organizatons competently enough to compete with shareholder-run private enterprises, yet you think this same polity can craft effective cookie-cutter rules that will affect millions of interactions a day. It's not a coherent model of the world. b) the state is not limited to organizations under its direct management to support its policies. As I explained in a response to a sibling comment of yours, the state could still tap market forces to bring about public squares that abide with its guidelines, by providing subsidies to private parties developing such platforms, in exchange for the parties entering into an irrevocable covenant that requires them to follow the state's rules. Yet another option would be the state funding decentralized open-source protocols that are capable of entirely replacing centralized parties in many markets. The state, being publicly funded, is the only entity capable of cost-effectively funding non-profit initiatives like this that produce public goods. My larger point is that the state should not be monopolizing industries. It should provide alternatives to the private options. If it fails, the public still has the private options. If it succeeds, it did so by providing an option superior to those provided by the private sector. This imposes accountability on the state, by leaving it with competitors to act as a yardstick, while ensuring its interventions only impact the market to the extent that they improve it.

linspace 5y ago
I do think the state is capable of managing very large organizations, like public education, health, infrastructure... And the political party in charge may obtain votes by doing a good work. But in the case of the media I think interests are not aligned. I think putting in place laws to regulate private companies is the lesser of two evils. In Spain at least there are lots of instances of courts overturning contracts, the most famous ones maybe related to mortgage conditions. I'm not sure if this is good or not in the long term, but it's the case.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  I would submit that any large organization, whether it's public education, health or infrastructure, can be heavily abused for political gain like providing patronage opportunities. The Japanese infrastructure slush funds are a classic example of that. And I would also submit that state intervention in healthcare and education has been a dramatic failure, with costs in these two sectors skyrocketing over the period in which the state expanded its role in them. >>In Spain at least there are lots of instances of courts overturning contracts, the most famous ones maybe related to mortgage conditions. I'm not sure if this is good or not in the long term, but it's the case. If a court overturns a contract, that is fine. One of the roles of the state, in a free society, is to rule on contracts via its courts, and invalidate those that do not meet the bar for consent. But legislative bodies do not engage in the same impartial and deliberative process as courts so they are not the proper venue through which to restrict private interactions.