6 ms·

Just create and apply better anti-trust laws and break up the monopolies. (Specially since most platforms got their almost monopolies by creating anti-competiti

Just create and apply better anti-trust laws and break up the monopolies. (Specially since most platforms got their almost monopolies by creating anti-competitive walled gardens with no inter-operation with other similar platforms a la Fediverse / ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica) Or better yet, promote counter-anti-desintermediation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediation https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio... > The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before. If we are to understand the consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration. Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit.

orhmeh09 5y ago
When you say “just do x,” you make it sound so simple. You’re missing out “just do all of this keeping in mind you’re trying to change the law using lawmakers who are personally invested in these companies that have more resources than many nation states.”
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  I mean in opposition of legislating on what "big tech" specifically can or cannot remove or host on their platforms in comparison to small blogs like the example up thread.
  - orhmeh09 5y ago
    I understand. I agree that yes, that would be similarly fruitless. What is to be done?
geofft 5y ago
The most coherent plans in recent times to do exactly that came from Elizabeth Warren. It would have solved the problem elegantly. But people are too partisan (and too fractally partisan within their parties) to listen to a good idea from a person they don't like. https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  Actually, Many of us on different spectrums (libertarian here) did listen to what Elizabeth Warren said, and we agree with it. I think there is a great deal of truth in what the anti-monopolist economic crusaders on the left (Sanders&Warren) have said. While I may not agree with everything they said about economics across the board, I do think they are correct in that we have permitted bigtech to become a monopoly. AND, I agree that overly favorable tax jurisdiction shopping is a massive problem. We need to re-empower the DOJ to pursue antitrust again, and we need it now.
- clairity 5y ago
  warren had a more coherent policy package than any other candidate, but from what i remember, some of her proposals showed clear detachment from actual on-the-ground issues vs. academic idealism. it's just like how 'progressivism' has been co-opted by ultra-liberal/socialist factions to mean 'spend as much as possible on social programs, consequences be damned', which we're seeing in the current stimulus package debate. her proposals on how to deal with consolidated power and capital at the top are/were more reasonable, but that's because she's has a more visceral experience in that arena, rather than with poverty, housing, or immigration issues, for example.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
The idea of treating as a monopoly problem is interesting, but I'm not sure how you prevent centralization like this from repeating itself in the future, given that it is built on network effects. At the end of the day there will be a concentration of audiences somewhere, so I don't think this problem goes away. What I wonder is whether at a certain point we actually need to protect people from themselves. I get how ominous that sounds, but OTOH if large swaths of the population, say, fall prey to senseless conspiracy theories, do we just watch it play out?
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  > given that it is built on network effects. Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way: - Email is useful regardless of the software, OS, server or owner of the address you are sending emails to. - The fediverse benefits from network effects and interoperability between instances with both different software and different communities. I would even go further and argue that centralized "network effects" are in reality "captive costs" of "not being inside the walled garden" rather than a true network to begin with.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    Look at the effects of email and "the fediverse" versus these giant social media platforms. Which is greater?
    - fabianhjr 5y ago
      Well, a lot of organizations use email for internal and external operations processes and I would be very skeptical about sending contracts or legal documents via facebook messenger. Through the magic of interoperability entities can set up their own servers or contract to external providers their email services.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        Fair point, but it has nothing to do with the context of the article. I was referring to the ability to influence societal and individual viewpoints. I don't think email comes anywhere near that.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Trillion dollar company won't allow better antitrust laws to happen, because they are allied with the currently ruling party. This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party.
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  > This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party. Probably no relation with the 2014 Princeton study published on the Cambridge University Press that determined the United States of America to be an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... > But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened
  - adventured 5y ago
    If the Presidency were an oligarchy, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama could have become President. And Trump could have never won, since most of the power groups were overwhelmingly against him winning, and he won solely due to his populist voter base - democracy in action in fact. Trump also raised drastically less money than Hillary Clinton did; if there's an oligarchy trying to pick presidents it was against him, not for him. His win partially invalidates the Princeton premise. Neither Bill Clinton or Obama came from or had money. Neither had fathers in their lives or immediate great families of consequence. Neither had long-tenured national political experience. Oh yeah, and Obama is half black. The oligarchy chose Obama over Hillary Clinton? They had no choice is what actually happened. Just because the study came from Princeton, that doesn't mean it's not idiotic.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

orhmeh09 5y ago

When you say “just do x,” you make it sound so simple. You’re missing out “just do all of this keeping in mind you’re trying to change the law using lawmakers who are personally invested in these companies that have more resources than many nation states.”

fabianhjr 5y ago
I mean in opposition of legislating on what "big tech" specifically can or cannot remove or host on their platforms in comparison to small blogs like the example up thread.
- orhmeh09 5y ago
  I understand. I agree that yes, that would be similarly fruitless. What is to be done?

geofft 5y ago

The most coherent plans in recent times to do exactly that came from Elizabeth Warren. It would have solved the problem elegantly. But people are too partisan (and too fractally partisan within their parties) to listen to a good idea from a person they don't like. https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big...

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
Actually, Many of us on different spectrums (libertarian here) did listen to what Elizabeth Warren said, and we agree with it. I think there is a great deal of truth in what the anti-monopolist economic crusaders on the left (Sanders&Warren) have said. While I may not agree with everything they said about economics across the board, I do think they are correct in that we have permitted bigtech to become a monopoly. AND, I agree that overly favorable tax jurisdiction shopping is a massive problem. We need to re-empower the DOJ to pursue antitrust again, and we need it now.
clairity 5y ago
warren had a more coherent policy package than any other candidate, but from what i remember, some of her proposals showed clear detachment from actual on-the-ground issues vs. academic idealism. it's just like how 'progressivism' has been co-opted by ultra-liberal/socialist factions to mean 'spend as much as possible on social programs, consequences be damned', which we're seeing in the current stimulus package debate. her proposals on how to deal with consolidated power and capital at the top are/were more reasonable, but that's because she's has a more visceral experience in that arena, rather than with poverty, housing, or immigration issues, for example.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

The idea of treating as a monopoly problem is interesting, but I'm not sure how you prevent centralization like this from repeating itself in the future, given that it is built on network effects. At the end of the day there will be a concentration of audiences somewhere, so I don't think this problem goes away. What I wonder is whether at a certain point we actually need to protect people from themselves. I get how ominous that sounds, but OTOH if large swaths of the population, say, fall prey to senseless conspiracy theories, do we just watch it play out?

fabianhjr 5y ago
> given that it is built on network effects. Network effects can happen in a federated or decentralized way: - Email is useful regardless of the software, OS, server or owner of the address you are sending emails to. - The fediverse benefits from network effects and interoperability between instances with both different software and different communities. I would even go further and argue that centralized "network effects" are in reality "captive costs" of "not being inside the walled garden" rather than a true network to begin with.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Look at the effects of email and "the fediverse" versus these giant social media platforms. Which is greater?
  - fabianhjr 5y ago
    Well, a lot of organizations use email for internal and external operations processes and I would be very skeptical about sending contracts or legal documents via facebook messenger. Through the magic of interoperability entities can set up their own servers or contract to external providers their email services.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      Fair point, but it has nothing to do with the context of the article. I was referring to the ability to influence societal and individual viewpoints. I don't think email comes anywhere near that.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Trillion dollar company won't allow better antitrust laws to happen, because they are allied with the currently ruling party. This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party.

fabianhjr 5y ago
> This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party. Probably no relation with the 2014 Princeton study published on the Cambridge University Press that determined the United States of America to be an Oligarchy rather than a Democracy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... > But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened
- adventured 5y ago
  If the Presidency were an oligarchy, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama could have become President. And Trump could have never won, since most of the power groups were overwhelmingly against him winning, and he won solely due to his populist voter base - democracy in action in fact. Trump also raised drastically less money than Hillary Clinton did; if there's an oligarchy trying to pick presidents it was against him, not for him. His win partially invalidates the Princeton premise. Neither Bill Clinton or Obama came from or had money. Neither had fathers in their lives or immediate great families of consequence. Neither had long-tenured national political experience. Oh yeah, and Obama is half black. The oligarchy chose Obama over Hillary Clinton? They had no choice is what actually happened. Just because the study came from Princeton, that doesn't mean it's not idiotic.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago