4 ms·

I would contest your position. While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact. I did basically the same thing

I would contest your position. While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact. I did basically the same thing as the user you responded to did, but only about 6-8 months ago. And I plan to migrate off of Google services as soon as Graphene is ported to the Pixel 6. If the utility that the convenience that Google offers you outweighs the inconvenience of not doing business with a company you disagree with, no problem. Your utility curve doesn't weigh in the actions of the company as heavily as mine. Google won't need to change their behavior until enough people leave, and even then they may choose to go out of business as opposed to changing. But you would have played your part and spoken with your wallet which is how free markets are designed. Note: My utility curve doesn't place any emphasis on me individually acting as a figure in Google politics: unions, regulation, etc. We all have preferences.

beaconstudios 5y ago
> While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact. If we round off and assume Google has 2 billion customers, then your marginal impact is 0.00000005%. That doesn't do anything at all. > Google won't need to change their behavior until enough people leave This is based on the assumption that the only action one can and should take against Google is an individual disconnection from their services. This is pointless compared to meaningful changes through systemic means. I know HN has a lot of libertarian/rationalist economist types, but that ideological approach has been shown time and again to accomplish nothing, to the point where brands actively encourage "vote with your wallet" boycotts from conservatives because they are actually extemely profitable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg). I'd also point out the libertarianism/rationalism is rooted in neoliberalism and the whole point of neoliberalism is to remove challenges to corporate power, so of course they would encourage actions that do nothing to really harm corporate power while feeling like you're doing something. It's the consumer activism equivalent of donating £5/month to charity to assuage your first-world guilt.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  0.00000005% is not 0%. There is marginal impact. You are correct that I am both a libertarian and economist type, and that is born out of my love for rationality. To do what you propose, you need to implement regulation. It is unclear to me how changing worker bargaining would impact the practices of Google towards consumers. To implement regulation, you'll need to define some harm that is being incurred by a third party that is not voluntarily participating in a private transaction. What is the basis for the proposed regulation? I don't think libertarianism exists to remove challenges to corporate power. Rather, it seems to me that it is rooted in, "live and let live." Unless there is a negative externality that is incurred by an unwilling participant, there should be no regulation. Morality is not the job of the state.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    > There is marginal impact. Yes, but meaningless. If you want something to change, you typically don't settle for changing it by one in two billion. > You are correct that I am both a libertarian and economist type, and that is born out of my love for rationality. I used to take this stance until I learned about systems theory (and later critical theory, which is just systems theory applied to sociology*). Now I realise that libertarianism is only rational if socioeconomic individualism (ie, no collective action, no changing of institutions) is an axiom that you accept on faith. *kind of, it's more complicated than that. Oh, and systems theory is the flipside of cybernetics, which is one of the main rational bases of both automation and computing. It is itself a rational field. > To do what you propose, you need to implement regulation. It is unclear to me how changing worker bargaining would impact the practices of Google towards consumers. In theory, sure, maybe Google workers don't have to care about this stuff. But they do, and there's been lots of internal activism within Google about reducing the company's negative externalities. > To implement regulation, you'll need to define some harm that is being incurred by a third party that is not voluntarily participating in a private transaction. What is the basis for the proposed regulation? I reject your dilemma because if taken as-is, there would also be no argument against monopolies or monopsonies as they are caused by free individuals participating voluntarily in private transactions. > I don't think libertarianism exists to remove challenges to corporate power. Rather, it seems to me that it is rooted in, "live and let live." Unless there is a negative externality that is incurred by an unwilling participant, there should be no regulation. Morality is not the job of the state. Libertarianism is rooted in deregulation of private industry, which objectively increases corporate power by removing constraints on their actions. I understand the belief behind it being "live and let live" because if you formulate a free market system from the position of an individual voluntary transaction, and don't look at the higher-order effects that can come from that, then it seems like a good ideology. I believed this myself, maybe 10 years ago. > Morality is not the job of the state. Regulation is, though. Plus, laws are how we enforce the Overton window of our collectively agreed-upon moral beliefs - theft is the illegalisation of stealing, after all, and murder is illegal too; I would assume you're OK with these laws.

beaconstudios 5y ago

> While your individual action may be of no consequence to Google, it still has a marginal impact. If we round off and assume Google has 2 billion customers, then your marginal impact is 0.00000005%. That doesn't do anything at all. > Google won't need to change their behavior until enough people leave This is based on the assumption that the only action one can and should take against Google is an individual disconnection from their services. This is pointless compared to meaningful changes through systemic means. I know HN has a lot of libertarian/rationalist economist types, but that ideological approach has been shown time and again to accomplish nothing, to the point where brands actively encourage "vote with your wallet" boycotts from conservatives because they are actually extemely profitable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg). I'd also point out the libertarianism/rationalism is rooted in neoliberalism and the whole point of neoliberalism is to remove challenges to corporate power, so of course they would encourage actions that do nothing to really harm corporate power while feeling like you're doing something. It's the consumer activism equivalent of donating £5/month to charity to assuage your first-world guilt.

hellojesus 5y ago
0.00000005% is not 0%. There is marginal impact. You are correct that I am both a libertarian and economist type, and that is born out of my love for rationality. To do what you propose, you need to implement regulation. It is unclear to me how changing worker bargaining would impact the practices of Google towards consumers. To implement regulation, you'll need to define some harm that is being incurred by a third party that is not voluntarily participating in a private transaction. What is the basis for the proposed regulation? I don't think libertarianism exists to remove challenges to corporate power. Rather, it seems to me that it is rooted in, "live and let live." Unless there is a negative externality that is incurred by an unwilling participant, there should be no regulation. Morality is not the job of the state.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > There is marginal impact. Yes, but meaningless. If you want something to change, you typically don't settle for changing it by one in two billion. > You are correct that I am both a libertarian and economist type, and that is born out of my love for rationality. I used to take this stance until I learned about systems theory (and later critical theory, which is just systems theory applied to sociology*). Now I realise that libertarianism is only rational if socioeconomic individualism (ie, no collective action, no changing of institutions) is an axiom that you accept on faith. *kind of, it's more complicated than that. Oh, and systems theory is the flipside of cybernetics, which is one of the main rational bases of both automation and computing. It is itself a rational field. > To do what you propose, you need to implement regulation. It is unclear to me how changing worker bargaining would impact the practices of Google towards consumers. In theory, sure, maybe Google workers don't have to care about this stuff. But they do, and there's been lots of internal activism within Google about reducing the company's negative externalities. > To implement regulation, you'll need to define some harm that is being incurred by a third party that is not voluntarily participating in a private transaction. What is the basis for the proposed regulation? I reject your dilemma because if taken as-is, there would also be no argument against monopolies or monopsonies as they are caused by free individuals participating voluntarily in private transactions. > I don't think libertarianism exists to remove challenges to corporate power. Rather, it seems to me that it is rooted in, "live and let live." Unless there is a negative externality that is incurred by an unwilling participant, there should be no regulation. Morality is not the job of the state. Libertarianism is rooted in deregulation of private industry, which objectively increases corporate power by removing constraints on their actions. I understand the belief behind it being "live and let live" because if you formulate a free market system from the position of an individual voluntary transaction, and don't look at the higher-order effects that can come from that, then it seems like a good ideology. I believed this myself, maybe 10 years ago. > Morality is not the job of the state. Regulation is, though. Plus, laws are how we enforce the Overton window of our collectively agreed-upon moral beliefs - theft is the illegalisation of stealing, after all, and murder is illegal too; I would assume you're OK with these laws.