4 ms·

Regulation of private companies is sane and normal, there is no need to appeal to their inherent freedoms and such, everyone should be on the same page about th

Regulation of private companies is sane and normal, there is no need to appeal to their inherent freedoms and such, everyone should be on the same page about that. If you ideologically believe that no regulation should ever be imposed on a company, or individual, then take that idea to where it goes logically. Add problems like ecology, climate, transportation, and yes: control over information. The problem is rather __who__ will regulate a __global company__, when infact companies like google arguably hold more political power than many smaller countries do.

Barrin92 5y ago
Regulation of private companies is very sane and normal, I never said anything to the contrary. But yes there is a need to appeal to our fundamental freedoms apparently because you still need to actually justify and make a coherent argument why a given piece of regulation or limitation of freedom is reasonable, rather than just being mad that you got kicked off Twitter. It's very important to distinguish between the actual right you have, which is that nobody should be able to compel you to speak, or how to speak, which is a right that in this case Mailchimp has, and the complete reversal of this, namely forcing private entities to host the speech of others, and have the government coerce platforms on behalf of third parties. The author wants nothing less than a complete reversal on how we treat association and speech on the grounds that in his perception, 'purple haired millenials' run a business in a way that he doesn't approve of.
geofft 5y ago
There is a simple, straightforward answer here - prevent companies from amassing such power in the first place. It is far more obvious to me that there is an inherent right to choose whom you do business with and whom you don't than that there is an inherent right to have a single corporate entity employing unbounded numbers of employees and making unbounded amounts of money. The individual person can buy and sell on their own, without the government; the corporate entity only really works because it is recognized by the government. To be clear, I'm not claiming that regulations are illegitimate. We do regulate, say, the individual farmer to make sure they're selling actual milk and not melamine. We do regulate the individual storekeeper to obligate them not to discriminate on race. But those regulations are all very measured and designed to solve specific problems (ultimately - protecting those who are even weaker than the individual businessperson). Mailchimp is not some tech titan. They do not have more political power than any functional government. They are in no sense a monopoly in their industry, and they have exactly one industry, unlike the usual juggernauts that come up here. Calling them "Big Tech" is a clear example of the terrible slippery slope of adding regulations about obligating companies to do business vs. regulating their accrual of power, if that's the real problem. Any regulation that would apply to Mailchimp would - if it's going to be effective - also have to apply to a startup that wants to be in the same industry. (It may not apply immediately, but it will certainly apply to the startup's medium-term goals, and thus affect its profitability.) If you just want to regulate Google and Facebook, I could almost believe that, but if "Big Tech" includes Mailchimp, who doesn't it include? What we'll end up with is a system where anyone who wants to do business must have their business plan approved by Big Government, and where a professional specialization in complying with those regulations arises, and where there's a nice revolving door between implementing and enforcing them, and where Google continues to hold more political power than several countries and can engage in regulatory capture. It's hard to imagine that this aligns with the political desires of anyone except the current leadership at Big Tech. (Even the aspirational leadership of the next generation of Big Tech will find themselves shut out by this regulatory regime.)
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  So we’re on to time machines this early in the discussion? Government is toothless and unmotivated to reign them in for the same revolving door issues you wrote about already happening today. The only thing that changes any of this will be whistle blowers and exposition from the inside of these companies. Then you have the issue of what media company will run that story? Think about how much the media rely on Twitter for “content” now. I am skeptical of any positive changes for quite some time.

Barrin92 5y ago

Regulation of private companies is very sane and normal, I never said anything to the contrary. But yes there is a need to appeal to our fundamental freedoms apparently because you still need to actually justify and make a coherent argument why a given piece of regulation or limitation of freedom is reasonable, rather than just being mad that you got kicked off Twitter. It's very important to distinguish between the actual right you have, which is that nobody should be able to compel you to speak, or how to speak, which is a right that in this case Mailchimp has, and the complete reversal of this, namely forcing private entities to host the speech of others, and have the government coerce platforms on behalf of third parties. The author wants nothing less than a complete reversal on how we treat association and speech on the grounds that in his perception, 'purple haired millenials' run a business in a way that he doesn't approve of.

geofft 5y ago

There is a simple, straightforward answer here - prevent companies from amassing such power in the first place. It is far more obvious to me that there is an inherent right to choose whom you do business with and whom you don't than that there is an inherent right to have a single corporate entity employing unbounded numbers of employees and making unbounded amounts of money. The individual person can buy and sell on their own, without the government; the corporate entity only really works because it is recognized by the government. To be clear, I'm not claiming that regulations are illegitimate. We do regulate, say, the individual farmer to make sure they're selling actual milk and not melamine. We do regulate the individual storekeeper to obligate them not to discriminate on race. But those regulations are all very measured and designed to solve specific problems (ultimately - protecting those who are even weaker than the individual businessperson). Mailchimp is not some tech titan. They do not have more political power than any functional government. They are in no sense a monopoly in their industry, and they have exactly one industry, unlike the usual juggernauts that come up here. Calling them "Big Tech" is a clear example of the terrible slippery slope of adding regulations about obligating companies to do business vs. regulating their accrual of power, if that's the real problem. Any regulation that would apply to Mailchimp would - if it's going to be effective - also have to apply to a startup that wants to be in the same industry. (It may not apply immediately, but it will certainly apply to the startup's medium-term goals, and thus affect its profitability.) If you just want to regulate Google and Facebook, I could almost believe that, but if "Big Tech" includes Mailchimp, who doesn't it include? What we'll end up with is a system where anyone who wants to do business must have their business plan approved by Big Government, and where a professional specialization in complying with those regulations arises, and where there's a nice revolving door between implementing and enforcing them, and where Google continues to hold more political power than several countries and can engage in regulatory capture. It's hard to imagine that this aligns with the political desires of anyone except the current leadership at Big Tech. (Even the aspirational leadership of the next generation of Big Tech will find themselves shut out by this regulatory regime.)

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
So we’re on to time machines this early in the discussion? Government is toothless and unmotivated to reign them in for the same revolving door issues you wrote about already happening today. The only thing that changes any of this will be whistle blowers and exposition from the inside of these companies. Then you have the issue of what media company will run that story? Think about how much the media rely on Twitter for “content” now. I am skeptical of any positive changes for quite some time.