4 ms·

Thanks. I have some project students who can use this. It would be great to see other lists under specific "ownership groups" according to corporate control.

Thanks. I have some project students who can use this. It would be great to see other lists under specific "ownership groups" according to corporate control. Their project is to block the entire AS blocks of bits of "big tech", then measure how much of the "Internet" remains accessible. Basically, governments that want to break up big-tech don't understand the problem, and why that won't help. Measuring the dangerous resilience anti-patterns of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and other asset estates or edge brokers like Cloudflare is about measuring inter-dependency.

sofixa 4y ago
> Basically, governments that want to break up big-tech don't understand the problem, and why that won't help. Governments want to regulate big tech, not break it up. There are calls for forced break ups though. If anything, the size of big tech is a great argument for regulation, and why not breakups. There are "easy" ones, like Amazon and AWS, but the focus by (the only government with the will and necessary power to actually enact regulations) the EU Commission is entirely elsewhere, forcing big tech to build bridges accros their moats, enabling interoperability and competitors.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > Governments want to regulate big tech, not break it up. Correct. And I think they would rather do the former, but consider the latter a "nuclear option". In either case though, my key point is that they don't understand the problem. It is much more complex than a simple, traditional economic model of ownership as power. That's what the project is aimed at determining and explaining.
  - specialist 4y ago
    > ...[govt] don't understand the problem James Scott's Seeing Like a State argues this is the norm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State If I were an entity trying to regulate social media, I'd probably spend less time fully understanding and emphasize compelling the medias to behave in an approved manner. For better or worse.

sofixa 4y ago

> Basically, governments that want to break up big-tech don't understand the problem, and why that won't help. Governments want to regulate big tech, not break it up. There are calls for forced break ups though. If anything, the size of big tech is a great argument for regulation, and why not breakups. There are "easy" ones, like Amazon and AWS, but the focus by (the only government with the will and necessary power to actually enact regulations) the EU Commission is entirely elsewhere, forcing big tech to build bridges accros their moats, enabling interoperability and competitors.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> Governments want to regulate big tech, not break it up. Correct. And I think they would rather do the former, but consider the latter a "nuclear option". In either case though, my key point is that they don't understand the problem. It is much more complex than a simple, traditional economic model of ownership as power. That's what the project is aimed at determining and explaining.
- specialist 4y ago
  > ...[govt] don't understand the problem James Scott's Seeing Like a State argues this is the norm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State If I were an entity trying to regulate social media, I'd probably spend less time fully understanding and emphasize compelling the medias to behave in an approved manner. For better or worse.