5 ms·

This is where e.g. much of "free market" rhetoric and e.g. Libertarianism need to take a severe backseat. Given the reach, it's absolutely time for "government

by jrm4 4y ago

This is where e.g. much of "free market" rhetoric and e.g. Libertarianism need to take a severe backseat. Given the reach, it's absolutely time for "government interference." Now, I'm not actually saying that we definitely should shut things down. But we absolutely need to drag Google people into public hearings and such. Google et al have inserted themselves into their lives to an extent that they ought no longer be able to claim "but we're a private company." It's increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to opt out. Example; I fully intended for my children to not have anything like a Google account until a certain age -- but then the pandemic and remote schooling happened. It is true that with a great deal of pain to teachers et al I could have opted out, but that would have been literally unreasonable, not to mention unsustainable for other people.

ghiculescu 4y ago
What should the government do? The article discusses how it is not clear what should be different (other than turning the relevant accounts back on). It is easy to ask for public hearings but if there’s no intended remedy or change they will just be a show trial and nothing will change. Your example is great, because to me it illustrates my point well. What would you like to have had be different?
- jrm4 4y ago
  I think good places in the past to look are "warning labels" and/or "common carrier"-like ideas. Warning labels today, I think means "fixing voluminous EULA crap," which we've done in other fields reasonably well, e.g. the FDA I think is pretty solid here. Simply requiring "readable" terms of services I think would go a long way (though you have to wait a bit for things to shake out.) The general principles behind "common carrier" type services would also be a good idea to start thinking about; they essentially just say "When your product or service becomes a day-to-day thing for a lot of people, we're going to hold you to certain accessibility rules."
loudmax 4y ago
I think I largely agree with you about getting the government involved. But the nature of that involvement is important here. As I see it the fundamental problem is not that Google isn't behaving as a responsible steward of free speech. The problem is that Google shouldn't have this power to begin with. By law, Google should be allowed to capriciously and arbitrarily shut down a user's account. It's their service, they shouldn't need to provide a justification. But Google shouldn't be in a position where they control so much of the market. There needs to be real competition in this area so users can easily switch to a different provider if they lose faith in Google's reliability. Where the government needs to be involved is in ensuring real choice in a free market, rather than the current duopoly. Ensuring a free market isn't easy. It's much easier to simply pass a law that says that Google (or a company in a similar position) needs to provide better service or offer users recourse to dispute this sort of service interruption. But that's just putting wallpaper over a crack. We need the government to commit to the hard work of enforcing open standards of interoperability so smaller entrants can get into the market.
- merely-unlikely 4y ago
  I'd like to see a private equity style Competition Authority. The idea being the gov would come into a monopolized market and fund new competitors. I say PE because I'd rather the people profit if successful rather than subsidies but the real point is funding more choice vs only having the power to breakup or constrain existing corporations. Another tool in the toolbox.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Essentially, though -- this is just "more regulation with extra steps." Just pass the regulations and competition will likely find a way around it. Honestly, this to me is the biggest blind spot in all of "pro free market capitalism." The good flavor of capitalism is antifragile, You can make competition better precisely by making things HARDER on private companies, not easier. Stuff gets better because the weak die.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  I think this is roughly my stance as well. If we've allowed Google (and a few other select tech companies) the privilege of becoming de-facto monopolies in their space (and I believe we absolutely have, often intentionally as government policy in the international space) then they should be bound by the same rules that the government is. I think this is even more obvious when you consider how some of these companies creep into government processes. Ex: Google classroom is estimated to be in use in more than 60,000 schools across the US. This means that a Google account is required for all students in these schools (opt-outs exist, but are impractical, hard to enforce, and often cause you to be labeled as troublesome by teachers and staff). If my child attends a public school that is using Google software and requiring a Google account - The government damn well is involved, and I expect the government to require the same rights & due process for a Google account as they do for other governmental actions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Stupulous 4y ago
This is tangential, but your opening statement threw me for a loop. As a Libertarian, I've spent a lot of time arguing with people on the left and right who are on the pro-censorship side when it comes to corporations. While it wouldn't surprise me to see a Libertarian take a position against individual liberty on this issue, I have not seen that happen. Your ire may be better directed at the ones in the driver's seat who have the power to address this and refuse to do so rather than the powerless minority who consistently get this right.
Aunche 4y ago
> But we absolutely need to drag Google people into public hearings and such We have dragged Google into public hearings. The problem is that the purpose of these hearings has always been to collect soundbytes rather than to try to define a relationship between internet services, the people, and the government.
pdonis 4y ago
> This is where e.g. much of "free market" rhetoric and e.g. Libertarianism need to take a severe backseat. No, it's where we the people need to understand that rights come with responsibilities. If you want to claim the right to keep your data private, you need to not give it to third parties that you know are not going to honor that. And knowing that is easy when it comes to Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., because of the simple rule that if you're not paying for the product, you are the product. The problem here is not too much free market and libertarianism, but too little. The ultimate reason for this... > It's increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to opt out. ...is that the government has inserted itself more and more deeply into our lives, and we have let it. For example, your kids' schools are beholden to Google because they are run by the government, which is insulated from free market competition and can just punt on providing proper infrastructure. And the reason why Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. can survive on the ad-supported business model, instead of having to make their users actual paying customers as would be the case in a real free market, is that the government has set things up to favor them. They can get cheap loans to build the massive infrastructure they need because of government monetary policy. They can insulate themselves from any effective legal challenge because of the way the legal system is set up.
- cormorant 4y ago
  > your kids' schools are beholden to Google because they are run by the government, which is insulated from free market competition and can just punt on providing proper infrastructure. Private schools are just as beholden to Google. No school is going to compete on the basis of "we don't use Google services (we pay for more-private infrastructure)", in any world, ever. > we the people need to understand that rights come with responsibilities. If you want to claim the right to keep your data private, you need to not give it to third parties that you know are not going to honor that. So if I'm a parent of a school-age child, what exactly do you think I should do? If I don't decide that Google accounts are enough of a reason to homeschool my child, will you claim I don't understand that rights come with responsibilities, and that I (and my child) don't have any right to expect our data to be private? We live in a society. Sometimes the only way to crack collective action problems is government intervention.

by jrm4 4y ago

ghiculescu 4y ago

What should the government do? The article discusses how it is not clear what should be different (other than turning the relevant accounts back on). It is easy to ask for public hearings but if there’s no intended remedy or change they will just be a show trial and nothing will change. Your example is great, because to me it illustrates my point well. What would you like to have had be different?

jrm4 4y ago
I think good places in the past to look are "warning labels" and/or "common carrier"-like ideas. Warning labels today, I think means "fixing voluminous EULA crap," which we've done in other fields reasonably well, e.g. the FDA I think is pretty solid here. Simply requiring "readable" terms of services I think would go a long way (though you have to wait a bit for things to shake out.) The general principles behind "common carrier" type services would also be a good idea to start thinking about; they essentially just say "When your product or service becomes a day-to-day thing for a lot of people, we're going to hold you to certain accessibility rules."

loudmax 4y ago

I think I largely agree with you about getting the government involved. But the nature of that involvement is important here. As I see it the fundamental problem is not that Google isn't behaving as a responsible steward of free speech. The problem is that Google shouldn't have this power to begin with. By law, Google should be allowed to capriciously and arbitrarily shut down a user's account. It's their service, they shouldn't need to provide a justification. But Google shouldn't be in a position where they control so much of the market. There needs to be real competition in this area so users can easily switch to a different provider if they lose faith in Google's reliability. Where the government needs to be involved is in ensuring real choice in a free market, rather than the current duopoly. Ensuring a free market isn't easy. It's much easier to simply pass a law that says that Google (or a company in a similar position) needs to provide better service or offer users recourse to dispute this sort of service interruption. But that's just putting wallpaper over a crack. We need the government to commit to the hard work of enforcing open standards of interoperability so smaller entrants can get into the market.

merely-unlikely 4y ago
I'd like to see a private equity style Competition Authority. The idea being the gov would come into a monopolized market and fund new competitors. I say PE because I'd rather the people profit if successful rather than subsidies but the real point is funding more choice vs only having the power to breakup or constrain existing corporations. Another tool in the toolbox.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Essentially, though -- this is just "more regulation with extra steps." Just pass the regulations and competition will likely find a way around it. Honestly, this to me is the biggest blind spot in all of "pro free market capitalism." The good flavor of capitalism is antifragile, You can make competition better precisely by making things HARDER on private companies, not easier. Stuff gets better because the weak die.
horsawlarway 4y ago
I think this is roughly my stance as well. If we've allowed Google (and a few other select tech companies) the privilege of becoming de-facto monopolies in their space (and I believe we absolutely have, often intentionally as government policy in the international space) then they should be bound by the same rules that the government is. I think this is even more obvious when you consider how some of these companies creep into government processes. Ex: Google classroom is estimated to be in use in more than 60,000 schools across the US. This means that a Google account is required for all students in these schools (opt-outs exist, but are impractical, hard to enforce, and often cause you to be labeled as troublesome by teachers and staff). If my child attends a public school that is using Google software and requiring a Google account - The government damn well is involved, and I expect the government to require the same rights & due process for a Google account as they do for other governmental actions.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Stupulous 4y ago

This is tangential, but your opening statement threw me for a loop. As a Libertarian, I've spent a lot of time arguing with people on the left and right who are on the pro-censorship side when it comes to corporations. While it wouldn't surprise me to see a Libertarian take a position against individual liberty on this issue, I have not seen that happen. Your ire may be better directed at the ones in the driver's seat who have the power to address this and refuse to do so rather than the powerless minority who consistently get this right.

Aunche 4y ago

> But we absolutely need to drag Google people into public hearings and such We have dragged Google into public hearings. The problem is that the purpose of these hearings has always been to collect soundbytes rather than to try to define a relationship between internet services, the people, and the government.

pdonis 4y ago

> This is where e.g. much of "free market" rhetoric and e.g. Libertarianism need to take a severe backseat. No, it's where we the people need to understand that rights come with responsibilities. If you want to claim the right to keep your data private, you need to not give it to third parties that you know are not going to honor that. And knowing that is easy when it comes to Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., because of the simple rule that if you're not paying for the product, you are the product. The problem here is not too much free market and libertarianism, but too little. The ultimate reason for this... > It's increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to opt out. ...is that the government has inserted itself more and more deeply into our lives, and we have let it. For example, your kids' schools are beholden to Google because they are run by the government, which is insulated from free market competition and can just punt on providing proper infrastructure. And the reason why Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. can survive on the ad-supported business model, instead of having to make their users actual paying customers as would be the case in a real free market, is that the government has set things up to favor them. They can get cheap loans to build the massive infrastructure they need because of government monetary policy. They can insulate themselves from any effective legal challenge because of the way the legal system is set up.

cormorant 4y ago
> your kids' schools are beholden to Google because they are run by the government, which is insulated from free market competition and can just punt on providing proper infrastructure. Private schools are just as beholden to Google. No school is going to compete on the basis of "we don't use Google services (we pay for more-private infrastructure)", in any world, ever. > we the people need to understand that rights come with responsibilities. If you want to claim the right to keep your data private, you need to not give it to third parties that you know are not going to honor that. So if I'm a parent of a school-age child, what exactly do you think I should do? If I don't decide that Google accounts are enough of a reason to homeschool my child, will you claim I don't understand that rights come with responsibilities, and that I (and my child) don't have any right to expect our data to be private? We live in a society. Sometimes the only way to crack collective action problems is government intervention.