4 ms·

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 prob

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.
shkkmo 4y ago
> 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. I strongly disagree. While there should be some level of protection for large companies ability to terminate customers at will, there also need to be consumer protections against unreasonable EULAs and capricious decisions. (Edit: some such protections already exist, so it is a question of if and how we shift the balance between consumer rights and corporate rights. I think as the companies grow larger, more powerful, and more integral to our daily lives, that balance needs to shift further towards consumer rights given the power imbalance.) When companies sell us digital goods and become integral parts of our digital lives, there arises a need to balance their rights of free association against the rights of their users to due process. That is not to say that simply mandating a fair dispute resolution system is a sufficient solution, but it is a necessary step. I think mandating data portability and maybe even interoperability is also necessary (though an interoperability mandate seems tricky to do well.)
- pdonis 4y ago
  > When companies sell us digital goods Google is not selling you any digital goods. They provide services like GMail for free to people. That is a big part of the problem: users are not paying customers and so have no leverage, as they would in a proper customer relationship. Instead, users are the product, and the actual paying customers have all the leverage in determining how the product is treated.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    Google operates a numer of stores for books, movies, music, apps, electronics and more. But that being said, I meant the "and" following the statement quoted to be an "or". The cliche of "if you aren't the customer, then you're the product" leaves out the important detail that you can always be both. Being a paying customer is no protection when you are in a business relationship where your have no power, especially when tou have few alternatives.
    - pdonis 4y ago

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.

shkkmo 4y ago

> 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. I strongly disagree. While there should be some level of protection for large companies ability to terminate customers at will, there also need to be consumer protections against unreasonable EULAs and capricious decisions. (Edit: some such protections already exist, so it is a question of if and how we shift the balance between consumer rights and corporate rights. I think as the companies grow larger, more powerful, and more integral to our daily lives, that balance needs to shift further towards consumer rights given the power imbalance.) When companies sell us digital goods and become integral parts of our digital lives, there arises a need to balance their rights of free association against the rights of their users to due process. That is not to say that simply mandating a fair dispute resolution system is a sufficient solution, but it is a necessary step. I think mandating data portability and maybe even interoperability is also necessary (though an interoperability mandate seems tricky to do well.)

pdonis 4y ago
> When companies sell us digital goods Google is not selling you any digital goods. They provide services like GMail for free to people. That is a big part of the problem: users are not paying customers and so have no leverage, as they would in a proper customer relationship. Instead, users are the product, and the actual paying customers have all the leverage in determining how the product is treated.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Google operates a numer of stores for books, movies, music, apps, electronics and more. But that being said, I meant the "and" following the statement quoted to be an "or". The cliche of "if you aren't the customer, then you're the product" leaves out the important detail that you can always be both. Being a paying customer is no protection when you are in a business relationship where your have no power, especially when tou have few alternatives.
  - pdonis 4y ago