6 ms·

> Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good. The fallacy here is that you don't get to decide what "so

> Regulations are the only tool that society has to prevent companies acting against the social good. The fallacy here is that you don't get to decide what "social good" is, especially in this case. People get to choose what is good for them, we're talking about tech products here. I see regulations in this specific case as something that goes against progress, whatever that means for the company of your favorite messaging app for the reasons I've explained above. What about startups that will have to think about this one more thing and maybe put in twice the work when they want to validate their new product? We're probably leaving out about thousands of other cases here, that's why I made the argument that it sounds nice but it's actually making things worse from my point of view.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dijit 4y ago
> [..] you don't get to decide what "social good" is Well, technically I have a say, I elect my leaders and can write to them with my opinion. Often it is the case that salesmen and charletons get into those positions but the basic premise of those positions is that they're intended to act in the social good. What you propose is that somehow tech companies will act in the social good by themselves, which I find particularly dubious. All capitalist companies (and by that I mean, any company that is enjoying success in a capitalist society) have an often unstated goal of monopolising their market. It is a natural outcome of competition that eventually there is a victor. The whole premise of capitalism is that competition is good, but eventually the strongest will win and you have a monopolistic leader. The only antidote to this is regulations. Making the argument that regulation hurts smaller companies is also something uniquely American. This regulation (and many other tech regulations) are really aimed at people abusing their position today, not some theoretical startup that somehow captures 60% of a market overnight. FWIW, I actually really like iMessage and agree with the decision Apple made not to open it, but I can't abide talk like this because a lot of people seem to think that regulation is somehow anti-capitalist, when in reality regulation is the only thing that could keep the capitalist machine running once there is a monopoly position or a sufficient moat around a service.
- mattrighetti 4y ago
  > The only antidote to this is regulations. Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt smaller businesses in the long run because those giants that have the monopoly move way faster than governments and they usually have thousands of smart lawyers ready to find holes and exploit/get around regulations made, usually, by people that does not understand the subject enough. Want to take a guess and see who does not have thousands of smart lawyers? Just FYI: We have the Apple's example with USB-C ready to showcase this exact thing.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Yes, if you intend on doing something unethical then it's certainly easier as a big company. I have so far had good experiences with the legal system and regulations by choosing industries that are not unethical. Nobody is chasing people who are not in violation of the cardinal rule zero: "Do not act in a way that requires [me] to make a new rule"
  - saiya-jin 4y ago
    > Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt Yeah you made the point very clear already in all your other posts, no need to repeat it everywhere. Other point errors in your arguments like this being for 75b corps completely nullifying your core arguments, lets just say most of the forum including me, EU and indeed world doesn't share your view at all. In fact, some healthy dose of regulations makes society actual modern society, less people dying and suffering because money-first. Speed of progress at any costs, believe it or not, is not the ultimate measure of how 'good', moral or developed society is, despite very very few getting richer quicker that way.
    - mattrighetti 4y ago
      I did not make the case that ALL regulations must be erased to a zero, at all. I do believe that there must be a minimum of regulations that actually make everyone prosper and go along with each other. Unfortunately, regulating messaging so that anyone can have just a single app on their phone for that specific task is beyond unnecessary, but that's just my useless opinion I guess.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JoeNr76 4y ago
It only targets big "platform providers" not startups. It even levels the playing field for those startups. People get so ideologically tangled that they just knee jerk.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  > ideologically tangled I wish people being even that principled... I think the reactionaries in this debate are just the current generation of Apple "fanbois" who, for whatever reason, feel some need to "protect" a trillion-dollar company, or just good ol' fashioned elitism? My pet theory is that the frothy bile in posts wanting to keep iMessage private is probably grounded in psychology/sociology: People with a quite genuine fondness for Apple's products and services, combined with their higher barriers to entry (monetary cost), forms the basis for their in-group identity, and they don't want an out-group seen as inferior (Android users, etc) from getting to join-in their, private, shared-experience. It's the same as with kids fighting over PlayStation vs Xbox. Heh, it reminds me of when I was like that: I was a very visibly-on-the-spectrum kid who knew Photoshop, before anyone else at my school even knew what it was; when MSN Messenger 6.0 came out with support for custom user avatars/profile-pics: I thought this would lead to "normal" people learning Photoshop/digital-art and airbrushing and all getting their own Wacom tablets to make their own avatar-art and I'd lose my... special status as that one weird kid who knows Photoshop. Nah, turns out in the end everyone at school just used photos of themselves or the logos of rock bands (Radiohead's was popular) or sportswear brands. And in 2023, most people still don't know Photoshop. So being an Apple user tends to makes someone protective of whatever they feel makes Apple... Apple. Fortunately those people aren't MEPs who get to vote on legislation with a demonstrable public benefit.
jrm4 4y ago
The fallacy HERE is "individual preferences accurately reflect collective good." Again, there's no clear-cut answer at any given time whether or not "this particular possibly-restrictive regulation is good for everyone." Sometimes it is, sometimes it ain't. That's what you use democracy/government for, to figure these things out.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources. The alternative of having people vote for a representative body that regulates how they transact is far worse. Best case you get a almost as good outcome. Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good".
  - kirel33 4y ago
    The whole point of market economies is for those who have the most wealth decide how resources are utilized.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      The aim is to find equilibriums though more signals and noise than any one authority could realize. The outcome is efficiency of resource allocation.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources. How do negative externalities and imperfect information figure into that? Sure, I'd love to buy Monsanto's awesome defoliant because it's cheaper than BASF's equivalent, but I may also get cancer from it in 5 years, or I may be killing pollinating insects for many miles downwind and downstream. Do you suppose market forces could have gotten rid of lead in paint or gasoline if regulations hadn't?
    - bratwurst3000 4y ago
jhrmnn 4y ago
> you don't get to decide what "social good" is, especially in this case. People get to choose what is good for them He or she doesn’t get to, but the society does. Collectively. Not individually. That’s the premise that makes the difference between “society” and a “collection of individuals”
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> People get to choose what is good for them, we're talking about tech products here. People have decided, by voting. Why do you think voting with your wallet is the only legitimate way of expressing your wishes? What if someone is poor, they get no vote? Maybe tbe poor person needs access to technology to not be poor, and the markets have locked them out? > What about startups The laws that apply to monopolies / oligopolies dont apply to startups

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dijit 4y ago

> [..] you don't get to decide what "social good" is Well, technically I have a say, I elect my leaders and can write to them with my opinion. Often it is the case that salesmen and charletons get into those positions but the basic premise of those positions is that they're intended to act in the social good. What you propose is that somehow tech companies will act in the social good by themselves, which I find particularly dubious. All capitalist companies (and by that I mean, any company that is enjoying success in a capitalist society) have an often unstated goal of monopolising their market. It is a natural outcome of competition that eventually there is a victor. The whole premise of capitalism is that competition is good, but eventually the strongest will win and you have a monopolistic leader. The only antidote to this is regulations. Making the argument that regulation hurts smaller companies is also something uniquely American. This regulation (and many other tech regulations) are really aimed at people abusing their position today, not some theoretical startup that somehow captures 60% of a market overnight. FWIW, I actually really like iMessage and agree with the decision Apple made not to open it, but I can't abide talk like this because a lot of people seem to think that regulation is somehow anti-capitalist, when in reality regulation is the only thing that could keep the capitalist machine running once there is a monopoly position or a sufficient moat around a service.

mattrighetti 4y ago
> The only antidote to this is regulations. Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt smaller businesses in the long run because those giants that have the monopoly move way faster than governments and they usually have thousands of smart lawyers ready to find holes and exploit/get around regulations made, usually, by people that does not understand the subject enough. Want to take a guess and see who does not have thousands of smart lawyers? Just FYI: We have the Apple's example with USB-C ready to showcase this exact thing.
- dijit 4y ago
  Yes, if you intend on doing something unethical then it's certainly easier as a big company. I have so far had good experiences with the legal system and regulations by choosing industries that are not unethical. Nobody is chasing people who are not in violation of the cardinal rule zero: "Do not act in a way that requires [me] to make a new rule"
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  > Well, I respectfully disagree, I'm a firm believer that regulations disproportionately hurt Yeah you made the point very clear already in all your other posts, no need to repeat it everywhere. Other point errors in your arguments like this being for 75b corps completely nullifying your core arguments, lets just say most of the forum including me, EU and indeed world doesn't share your view at all. In fact, some healthy dose of regulations makes society actual modern society, less people dying and suffering because money-first. Speed of progress at any costs, believe it or not, is not the ultimate measure of how 'good', moral or developed society is, despite very very few getting richer quicker that way.
  - mattrighetti 4y ago
    I did not make the case that ALL regulations must be erased to a zero, at all. I do believe that there must be a minimum of regulations that actually make everyone prosper and go along with each other. Unfortunately, regulating messaging so that anyone can have just a single app on their phone for that specific task is beyond unnecessary, but that's just my useless opinion I guess.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JoeNr76 4y ago

It only targets big "platform providers" not startups. It even levels the playing field for those startups. People get so ideologically tangled that they just knee jerk.

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
> ideologically tangled I wish people being even that principled... I think the reactionaries in this debate are just the current generation of Apple "fanbois" who, for whatever reason, feel some need to "protect" a trillion-dollar company, or just good ol' fashioned elitism? My pet theory is that the frothy bile in posts wanting to keep iMessage private is probably grounded in psychology/sociology: People with a quite genuine fondness for Apple's products and services, combined with their higher barriers to entry (monetary cost), forms the basis for their in-group identity, and they don't want an out-group seen as inferior (Android users, etc) from getting to join-in their, private, shared-experience. It's the same as with kids fighting over PlayStation vs Xbox. Heh, it reminds me of when I was like that: I was a very visibly-on-the-spectrum kid who knew Photoshop, before anyone else at my school even knew what it was; when MSN Messenger 6.0 came out with support for custom user avatars/profile-pics: I thought this would lead to "normal" people learning Photoshop/digital-art and airbrushing and all getting their own Wacom tablets to make their own avatar-art and I'd lose my... special status as that one weird kid who knows Photoshop. Nah, turns out in the end everyone at school just used photos of themselves or the logos of rock bands (Radiohead's was popular) or sportswear brands. And in 2023, most people still don't know Photoshop. So being an Apple user tends to makes someone protective of whatever they feel makes Apple... Apple. Fortunately those people aren't MEPs who get to vote on legislation with a demonstrable public benefit.

jrm4 4y ago

The fallacy HERE is "individual preferences accurately reflect collective good." Again, there's no clear-cut answer at any given time whether or not "this particular possibly-restrictive regulation is good for everyone." Sometimes it is, sometimes it ain't. That's what you use democracy/government for, to figure these things out.

hellojesus 4y ago
The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources. The alternative of having people vote for a representative body that regulates how they transact is far worse. Best case you get a almost as good outcome. Worst case is 49.9% of people suffer horribly under state enforced "social good".
- kirel33 4y ago
  The whole point of market economies is for those who have the most wealth decide how resources are utilized.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    The aim is to find equilibriums though more signals and noise than any one authority could realize. The outcome is efficiency of resource allocation.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > The whole point of market economies is to let people vote with their resources. How do negative externalities and imperfect information figure into that? Sure, I'd love to buy Monsanto's awesome defoliant because it's cheaper than BASF's equivalent, but I may also get cancer from it in 5 years, or I may be killing pollinating insects for many miles downwind and downstream. Do you suppose market forces could have gotten rid of lead in paint or gasoline if regulations hadn't?
  - bratwurst3000 4y ago

jhrmnn 4y ago

> you don't get to decide what "social good" is, especially in this case. People get to choose what is good for them He or she doesn’t get to, but the society does. Collectively. Not individually. That’s the premise that makes the difference between “society” and a “collection of individuals”

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> People get to choose what is good for them, we're talking about tech products here. People have decided, by voting. Why do you think voting with your wallet is the only legitimate way of expressing your wishes? What if someone is poor, they get no vote? Maybe tbe poor person needs access to technology to not be poor, and the markets have locked them out? > What about startups The laws that apply to monopolies / oligopolies dont apply to startups