4 ms·

USA is repeating the same mistake that with the car industry. Instead of a balanced legislation that allows for growth and keep citizens happy the USA went all

USA is repeating the same mistake that with the car industry. Instead of a balanced legislation that allows for growth and keep citizens happy the USA went all in on car centric cities to please car manufacturers. The same history seems to repeat itself with the tech industry. Instead of balance it seems that the bet is all in on tech controlled society to please tech companies. The equivalent to non walkable cities and only poor people using public transport will happen with on-line life of nothing changes.

jmeister 4y ago
How popular were the car companies? US big tech companies like amazon and Google enjoy more bipartisan support than practically any other institution, except maybe the military.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-public-wants-regulation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-pu... It’s been a story for a couple of years that big tech companies reputation in the US has tanked. There is bipartisan support for regulating them.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> The equivalent to non walkable cities and only poor people using public transport will happen with on-line life of nothing changes. Nice analogy and I agree with your take on the political weakness and abdication. But the analogy is not quite right. Real cities and roads are physical. If they're built wrong people are stuck and have to adapt over many decades or generations. Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. While the EU are going for government moderation the US will get sharp corrections in good time, in a de-facto, pragmatic fashion. Ultimately the US attitude is "leave it to the people".
- piva00 4y ago
  > Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. I agree with your take but I think you're underestimating network effects in this. Once a platform takes hold and grips people not through being the best product but the one with most reach it's very hard for a competitor to break that. Even more when competitors are simply bought and swallowed into the big corps.
  - svnt 4y ago
    Good points both; two more perspectives: 1) behavior change is generational, street layouts change all the time 2) in a healthy city, urban real estate is under extreme continuous pressure to be put to profitable use For an example look at the hidden total costs we pay to park cars in many cities. Look also how long something mostly pointless like lawns can persist culturally.
refurb 4y ago
This is amazingly wrong. Car companies did well because people wanted cars. I mean, go to small, transit-centric places like Singapore and see what people want to spend their money on… it’s cars.
- hourago 4y ago
  Not just bikes: https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54 https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54 It's an example of what I'm referring to. Cities were designed to push for cars. People wanted cars because cities were designed to exclude people that didn't have one.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Other way around. Cities were designed for people who had cars.
    - washadjeffmad 4y ago
      You can have cities designed for cars that aren't hostile to other modes of transport. It's just nonexistent in practice in the US. See anti-bike lane movements, lack of over and underpasses for pedestrians, sidewalks that quite literally connect nothing and go nowhere, local laws that prohibit walking on roads where there is no other access between locations, no crossings, signage, or road markings for pedestrians in commercial areas, etc. Go to a modern local shopping strip, park near the road, and walk the sidewalks. See if there's ramp or stair access between all parking lots and appropriate crossings between them. See if there are indicators before all curbs and paths for a blind person or someone in a wheel chair or with a stroller to travel. Being designed for cars only would imply useless designs wouldn't exist. They do, so we know that something is governing these things, just poorly and not in the favor of not-cars.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - avalys 4y ago
    People wanted cars because, for most of the US, they are the only practical transportation method. And even the people who live in the few dense urban areas that could get by without cars don’t want to cut themselves off from access to the rest of the country, so they invariably still owned one and wanted to use it.

jmeister 4y ago

How popular were the car companies? US big tech companies like amazon and Google enjoy more bipartisan support than practically any other institution, except maybe the military.

kasey_junk 4y ago
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-public-wants-regulation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/329666/views-big-tech-worsen-pu... It’s been a story for a couple of years that big tech companies reputation in the US has tanked. There is bipartisan support for regulating them.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> The equivalent to non walkable cities and only poor people using public transport will happen with on-line life of nothing changes. Nice analogy and I agree with your take on the political weakness and abdication. But the analogy is not quite right. Real cities and roads are physical. If they're built wrong people are stuck and have to adapt over many decades or generations. Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. While the EU are going for government moderation the US will get sharp corrections in good time, in a de-facto, pragmatic fashion. Ultimately the US attitude is "leave it to the people".

piva00 4y ago
> Digital technology is ephemeral, all built on software. I agree with your take but I think you're underestimating network effects in this. Once a platform takes hold and grips people not through being the best product but the one with most reach it's very hard for a competitor to break that. Even more when competitors are simply bought and swallowed into the big corps.
- svnt 4y ago
  Good points both; two more perspectives: 1) behavior change is generational, street layouts change all the time 2) in a healthy city, urban real estate is under extreme continuous pressure to be put to profitable use For an example look at the hidden total costs we pay to park cars in many cities. Look also how long something mostly pointless like lawns can persist culturally.

refurb 4y ago

This is amazingly wrong. Car companies did well because people wanted cars. I mean, go to small, transit-centric places like Singapore and see what people want to spend their money on… it’s cars.

hourago 4y ago
Not just bikes: https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54 https://youtu.be/uxykI30fS54 It's an example of what I'm referring to. Cities were designed to push for cars. People wanted cars because cities were designed to exclude people that didn't have one.
- refurb 4y ago
  Other way around. Cities were designed for people who had cars.
  - washadjeffmad 4y ago
    You can have cities designed for cars that aren't hostile to other modes of transport. It's just nonexistent in practice in the US. See anti-bike lane movements, lack of over and underpasses for pedestrians, sidewalks that quite literally connect nothing and go nowhere, local laws that prohibit walking on roads where there is no other access between locations, no crossings, signage, or road markings for pedestrians in commercial areas, etc. Go to a modern local shopping strip, park near the road, and walk the sidewalks. See if there's ramp or stair access between all parking lots and appropriate crossings between them. See if there are indicators before all curbs and paths for a blind person or someone in a wheel chair or with a stroller to travel. Being designed for cars only would imply useless designs wouldn't exist. They do, so we know that something is governing these things, just poorly and not in the favor of not-cars.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- avalys 4y ago
  People wanted cars because, for most of the US, they are the only practical transportation method. And even the people who live in the few dense urban areas that could get by without cars don’t want to cut themselves off from access to the rest of the country, so they invariably still owned one and wanted to use it.