4 ms·

Perhaps we're seeing a watershed moment for western culture. I hope the US government feeling ready to take on Google is merely a symptom of a broader sea-chan

Perhaps we're seeing a watershed moment for western culture. I hope the US government feeling ready to take on Google is merely a symptom of a broader sea-change. The problem is not one player like Google getting too big as a business. Monopolies naturally arise and get cut down, as often by markets than regulation. The change is that we must challenge the very idea that it's acceptable for one way of being , whether technology, platform, protocol, or practice to become a de-facto norm - and radically exclude all others. Mono-culture is in the crosshairs now, not monopoly. And that applies to the enforced "cashless society", effectively mandated smartphone use, single strong identity systems , cloud everything and app everything, and so on... Mono-cultures, whether in digital tech or banana crops, never end well. Lack of plurality is antithetical to long-term resilience and a healthy democracy and society.

dizzydes 3y ago
Monopolies are one thing as the products are similar so massive network effects and economies of scale might need to be offset by govt regulation. But on the monoculture point - doesn't the free market allow and reward diversity in areas people want it? You mention cashless society as an example.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  People as a whole balance diversity against the benefits of picking most-popular / best-in-breed (e.g. better support, reliability, and features; because it's funded at scale).
- Retric 3y ago
  People want more than one thing so diversity may easily fail to overcome the desire for cheaper prices etc. That’s the fundamental advantage to many kinds of regulations, markets can’t convey unlimited information. We don’t want people constantly trying to decide where to eat based on the perceived risks of food born illness rather than price and how good the food tastes etc. By minimizing the risks of trying new restaurants you increase competition in other areas.
bluescrn 3y ago
To governments, big tech monopolies/monocultures are good. They're a single point of control. Want to have a back-door installed to spy on users? Want to silence a problematic dissident? - Much easier to get it done in one place than in many. Especially if you can leverage the threat of 'breaking up a monopoly' if they don't want to comply...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > have a back-door installed to spy on users There is little evidence this is a motivator for Western leaders. It’s certainly not explanatory for Europe or American states. Your single point of control point is valid. But these conglomerates’ value to policymakers is broader than spying. Want to pass a tech-leadership package? There’s a ready provider. Deliver on social messaging goals, like diversity or free speech? Scaled provider there, too.
  - TexanFeller 3y ago
    > Deliver on social messaging goals, like diversity or free speech? Scaled provider there, too. If you expect a monopoly/monoculture to promote diversity and free speech you will be sorely disappointed.
dangus 3y ago
I’m really confused at your comment because it seems to be rejecting the idea of a monopoly but then describing a monopoly with a different word (“mono-culture”). I’m not sure how you get a mono-culture in the way you’re describing without a monopoly. Google has a monopoly on search, end of story. They have over 90% marketshare worldwide.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  I don't believe it's rejecting the monopoly concept, but rather pointing out that monopolies are but one (economic) instance of a broader pattern, monocultures. Monocultures are hyper-enriched in some aspects but depleted in many others and most importantly depleted in diversity. From game theory we can understand monocultures as an extrema on the exploration-exploitation tradeoff (trading off all exploration for exploitation). From evolution we know how this ends (poorly).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Guvante 3y ago
  Monopoly law isn't about being the biggest provider. Monopoly law is about leveraging your position as a big provider against competition. Microsoft had as much market share in consumer OS. They didn't get in trouble for that. They got in trouble for killing Netscape by bundling IE and forcing Windows on all devices by charging per device sold regardless of whether Windows was installed or not. (Might have missed other suits but these are examples) Government intervention to ensure competition rarely happens so maybe a new term to describe that would be good.
matthewfelgate 3y ago
You seem to be brain dumping lots of personal opinions unrelated to the article. Quite willing to discuss them though! Not sure Google enforces one way of being: there is Bing search instead of Google and iPhone instead of Android. Cashless society is a different concept, but also you have Google Pay, Apple Pay, others. so still not a monopoly. Cloud everything, not sure want you want different. Companies to have their own serves in their offices?
- afavour 3y ago
  > Not sure Google enforces one way of being: there is Bing search instead of Google and iPhone instead of Android. And Google paid Apple to make them the default search engine on iPhones! To rewind back to the 90s: there was always an alternative to Internet Explorer. But MS was still punished for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Microsoft also explicitly wanted to kill Netscape when it did that. (Other anti bundling lawsuits have won without that situation so I don't know if that is necessary but it certainly hurt their case)
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Of course all opinions are personal, but I feel connecting the dots within these issues is an urgent project. Thanks, would sincerely love you to discuss these things, and you can find (mine and others') attempts to connect those dots here on our podcast: https://cybershow.uk https://cybershow.uk
- tjoff 3y ago
  Duopoly is arguably even worse than a monopoly though.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    Then they should go after Microsoft and Apple for their Duopoly of the desktop OS market.

dizzydes 3y ago

Monopolies are one thing as the products are similar so massive network effects and economies of scale might need to be offset by govt regulation. But on the monoculture point - doesn't the free market allow and reward diversity in areas people want it? You mention cashless society as an example.

ethbr1 3y ago
People as a whole balance diversity against the benefits of picking most-popular / best-in-breed (e.g. better support, reliability, and features; because it's funded at scale).
Retric 3y ago
People want more than one thing so diversity may easily fail to overcome the desire for cheaper prices etc. That’s the fundamental advantage to many kinds of regulations, markets can’t convey unlimited information. We don’t want people constantly trying to decide where to eat based on the perceived risks of food born illness rather than price and how good the food tastes etc. By minimizing the risks of trying new restaurants you increase competition in other areas.

bluescrn 3y ago

To governments, big tech monopolies/monocultures are good. They're a single point of control. Want to have a back-door installed to spy on users? Want to silence a problematic dissident? - Much easier to get it done in one place than in many. Especially if you can leverage the threat of 'breaking up a monopoly' if they don't want to comply...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> have a back-door installed to spy on users There is little evidence this is a motivator for Western leaders. It’s certainly not explanatory for Europe or American states. Your single point of control point is valid. But these conglomerates’ value to policymakers is broader than spying. Want to pass a tech-leadership package? There’s a ready provider. Deliver on social messaging goals, like diversity or free speech? Scaled provider there, too.
- TexanFeller 3y ago
  > Deliver on social messaging goals, like diversity or free speech? Scaled provider there, too. If you expect a monopoly/monoculture to promote diversity and free speech you will be sorely disappointed.

dangus 3y ago

I’m really confused at your comment because it seems to be rejecting the idea of a monopoly but then describing a monopoly with a different word (“mono-culture”). I’m not sure how you get a mono-culture in the way you’re describing without a monopoly. Google has a monopoly on search, end of story. They have over 90% marketshare worldwide.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
I don't believe it's rejecting the monopoly concept, but rather pointing out that monopolies are but one (economic) instance of a broader pattern, monocultures. Monocultures are hyper-enriched in some aspects but depleted in many others and most importantly depleted in diversity. From game theory we can understand monocultures as an extrema on the exploration-exploitation tradeoff (trading off all exploration for exploitation). From evolution we know how this ends (poorly).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Guvante 3y ago
Monopoly law isn't about being the biggest provider. Monopoly law is about leveraging your position as a big provider against competition. Microsoft had as much market share in consumer OS. They didn't get in trouble for that. They got in trouble for killing Netscape by bundling IE and forcing Windows on all devices by charging per device sold regardless of whether Windows was installed or not. (Might have missed other suits but these are examples) Government intervention to ensure competition rarely happens so maybe a new term to describe that would be good.

matthewfelgate 3y ago

You seem to be brain dumping lots of personal opinions unrelated to the article. Quite willing to discuss them though! Not sure Google enforces one way of being: there is Bing search instead of Google and iPhone instead of Android. Cashless society is a different concept, but also you have Google Pay, Apple Pay, others. so still not a monopoly. Cloud everything, not sure want you want different. Companies to have their own serves in their offices?

afavour 3y ago
> Not sure Google enforces one way of being: there is Bing search instead of Google and iPhone instead of Android. And Google paid Apple to make them the default search engine on iPhones! To rewind back to the 90s: there was always an alternative to Internet Explorer. But MS was still punished for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Microsoft also explicitly wanted to kill Netscape when it did that. (Other anti bundling lawsuits have won without that situation so I don't know if that is necessary but it certainly hurt their case)
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Of course all opinions are personal, but I feel connecting the dots within these issues is an urgent project. Thanks, would sincerely love you to discuss these things, and you can find (mine and others') attempts to connect those dots here on our podcast: https://cybershow.uk https://cybershow.uk
tjoff 3y ago
Duopoly is arguably even worse than a monopoly though.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Then they should go after Microsoft and Apple for their Duopoly of the desktop OS market.