5 ms·

You jest, but that is how a well functioning free market would handle this problem, I think. As long as the information about the payments is public (and infor

You jest, but that is how a well functioning free market would handle this problem, I think. As long as the information about the payments is public (and information being available is an integral part of any free market, which some people seem to miss), then paying would be a losing proposition for Facebook in the long run since there's always another person ready to step and and start looking you'd need to pay off. At best they could hope to buy some time.

Draiken 3y ago
There's no such thing as a "well functioning free market". It's an utopia. What we have today is how a free market works. The invisible hand always tipping the scales. They would simply find a better way to get the outcome they want, avoiding the issue altogether (something at the federal level, make an example out of a researcher or institution, etc). The word utopia is used a lot when anything other than capitalism is being talked about, but the free market, which is an integral part of it, definitely takes the win. We have so many "free economies" around demonstrating how much of an utopia this concept is.
- golergka 3y ago
  Modern world is a utopia by any reasonable historical standard, yes.
  - Draiken 3y ago
    I cannot see how that could be true. I don't know what world you live in if you deem our current society as a perfect place. Maybe you're a billionaire?
    - mrangle 3y ago
      It could be true in the sense that you don't live in a cave, weren't murdered because of ever-marginally losing your physical edge at age 35, haven't died of a tooth infection, defecate indoors in a climate controlled structure, and can summon light as if by magic at any time of the day. Ignoring the rest, and acknowledging that this sounds like an aggressive answer. I don't mean it in that way. But there should be some POV on this incredibly rare era, even if it is imperfect strictly speaking. Maybe perfect is also the enemy of happy.
    - golergka 3y ago
      How many people you personally know have died of hunger? Have been killed in a robbery? How many of your brothers and sisters died before reaching the age of 10? How many of your own teeth did you have (or expect to have) at the age of 30? Have you been able to afford sugar more than 10 times in your life? How many times per year do you afford to wash yourself in hot water? How many people sleep in the same room in you? In your bed? How many fleas, ticks, mites and other insects to you usually scratch out of yourself? How many times have you been physically assaulted by someone in the last year? Just coming from an assumption that you're an average HN reader, your answers to this question are radically different from what most of humanity would have answered before 20th century (first world) or the second half of 20th century.
      - Draiken 3y ago
        I agree, but that's in no way, shape or form, an utopia. It's better than before, sure. But an utopia? Not even close.
        SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        >a utopia by any reasonable historical standard So... right, exactly what he said.
- kbenson 3y ago
  > There's no such thing as a "well functioning free market". It's an utopia. It's relative. You seem to be confusing "well" with "perfect". Depending on your point of view, no economic system is well functioning, because there will always be ebbs and flows where people clash with the system and it works better or worse at time. I'm not sure if our version of a free market in the U.S. is closer to well functioning or not, but I don't see a problem with pointing out how it can be better, and I'm not sure why you would respond with something I interpret as "don't bother, it can't be perfect", especially when you haven't presented a better alternative. > What we have today is how a free market works. The invisible hand always tipping the scales. They would simply find a better way to get the outcome they want, avoiding the issue altogether (something at the federal level, make an example out of a researcher or institution, etc). The counter to the invisible hand working against society instead of in tandem or for it is freely available information. In a free market economy, the answer is almost always more information because it allows individuals to act correctly, either through individual actions, or as a group through pressure on the government to regulate. So yes, what we have today is how a free market operates (although I would argue not very efficiently, due to lots of blocks on information that exist), and this information we're discussing in this post coming out and people being able to respond to it is the first step in being able to act on it to curtail it in the future. > The word utopia is used a lot when anything other than capitalism is being talked about, but the free market, which is an integral part of it, definitely takes the win. We have so many "free economies" around demonstrating how much of an utopia this concept is. The only person here who said that is you, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I certainly don't think it's some utopia, just a system built on emergent behavior that like any other, needs special bounds and constant attention to both keep it functioning as well as possible as well as keep it from going completely off the rails.
  - Draiken 3y ago
    > respond with something I interpret as "don't bother, it can't be perfect" That was not my intention. I simply had to point this out because your comment implied that a well functioning free market could somehow solve the issue. My take is that it can't, because there's no such thing. Whether or not we should bother with improving it, is a matter for another debate. My take is that we've tried it for long enough, and small improvements simply don't work anymore. Millions of people need/want something and a small handful of powerful rich folks can deny that with no real recourse. > The counter to the invisible hand working against society instead of in tandem or for it is freely available information. I mostly agree! But that's, once again, an utopia. Key information is still kept from the public eyes and the trend is to get more restricted to the rich and powerful as time goes on. As an example, a few key players like Google and Meta have information on virtually every single citizen in the world, while the public has absolutely no control over it or oversight on how that's used. I don't fully agree because of another problem that we can see almost every day: even with information, the system is unable to make any meaningful change. We have backroom deals exposed, corruption, quid-pro-quo everywhere, and yet the majority of the responsible people/companies remain free to keep doing those. At best we get a few scapegoats or slaps on the wrist. Information alone is useless if you either have nobody that can act on it (think unregulated markets, industries, etc), or the ones that are able to, can't or won't because of the existing power structures, like the example in the article. > The only person here who said that is you I was obviously alluding to the ever-present "communism/socialism is an utopia" argument. I never implied you said that specifically. It's just such a common argument that I assumed could be raised since I mentioned the word and I expanded on it.

Draiken 3y ago

There's no such thing as a "well functioning free market". It's an utopia. What we have today is how a free market works. The invisible hand always tipping the scales. They would simply find a better way to get the outcome they want, avoiding the issue altogether (something at the federal level, make an example out of a researcher or institution, etc). The word utopia is used a lot when anything other than capitalism is being talked about, but the free market, which is an integral part of it, definitely takes the win. We have so many "free economies" around demonstrating how much of an utopia this concept is.

golergka 3y ago
Modern world is a utopia by any reasonable historical standard, yes.
- Draiken 3y ago
  I cannot see how that could be true. I don't know what world you live in if you deem our current society as a perfect place. Maybe you're a billionaire?
  - mrangle 3y ago
    It could be true in the sense that you don't live in a cave, weren't murdered because of ever-marginally losing your physical edge at age 35, haven't died of a tooth infection, defecate indoors in a climate controlled structure, and can summon light as if by magic at any time of the day. Ignoring the rest, and acknowledging that this sounds like an aggressive answer. I don't mean it in that way. But there should be some POV on this incredibly rare era, even if it is imperfect strictly speaking. Maybe perfect is also the enemy of happy.
  - golergka 3y ago
    How many people you personally know have died of hunger? Have been killed in a robbery? How many of your brothers and sisters died before reaching the age of 10? How many of your own teeth did you have (or expect to have) at the age of 30? Have you been able to afford sugar more than 10 times in your life? How many times per year do you afford to wash yourself in hot water? How many people sleep in the same room in you? In your bed? How many fleas, ticks, mites and other insects to you usually scratch out of yourself? How many times have you been physically assaulted by someone in the last year? Just coming from an assumption that you're an average HN reader, your answers to this question are radically different from what most of humanity would have answered before 20th century (first world) or the second half of 20th century.
    - Draiken 3y ago
      I agree, but that's in no way, shape or form, an utopia. It's better than before, sure. But an utopia? Not even close.
      - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
        >a utopia by any reasonable historical standard So... right, exactly what he said.
kbenson 3y ago
> There's no such thing as a "well functioning free market". It's an utopia. It's relative. You seem to be confusing "well" with "perfect". Depending on your point of view, no economic system is well functioning, because there will always be ebbs and flows where people clash with the system and it works better or worse at time. I'm not sure if our version of a free market in the U.S. is closer to well functioning or not, but I don't see a problem with pointing out how it can be better, and I'm not sure why you would respond with something I interpret as "don't bother, it can't be perfect", especially when you haven't presented a better alternative. > What we have today is how a free market works. The invisible hand always tipping the scales. They would simply find a better way to get the outcome they want, avoiding the issue altogether (something at the federal level, make an example out of a researcher or institution, etc). The counter to the invisible hand working against society instead of in tandem or for it is freely available information. In a free market economy, the answer is almost always more information because it allows individuals to act correctly, either through individual actions, or as a group through pressure on the government to regulate. So yes, what we have today is how a free market operates (although I would argue not very efficiently, due to lots of blocks on information that exist), and this information we're discussing in this post coming out and people being able to respond to it is the first step in being able to act on it to curtail it in the future. > The word utopia is used a lot when anything other than capitalism is being talked about, but the free market, which is an integral part of it, definitely takes the win. We have so many "free economies" around demonstrating how much of an utopia this concept is. The only person here who said that is you, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I certainly don't think it's some utopia, just a system built on emergent behavior that like any other, needs special bounds and constant attention to both keep it functioning as well as possible as well as keep it from going completely off the rails.
- Draiken 3y ago
  > respond with something I interpret as "don't bother, it can't be perfect" That was not my intention. I simply had to point this out because your comment implied that a well functioning free market could somehow solve the issue. My take is that it can't, because there's no such thing. Whether or not we should bother with improving it, is a matter for another debate. My take is that we've tried it for long enough, and small improvements simply don't work anymore. Millions of people need/want something and a small handful of powerful rich folks can deny that with no real recourse. > The counter to the invisible hand working against society instead of in tandem or for it is freely available information. I mostly agree! But that's, once again, an utopia. Key information is still kept from the public eyes and the trend is to get more restricted to the rich and powerful as time goes on. As an example, a few key players like Google and Meta have information on virtually every single citizen in the world, while the public has absolutely no control over it or oversight on how that's used. I don't fully agree because of another problem that we can see almost every day: even with information, the system is unable to make any meaningful change. We have backroom deals exposed, corruption, quid-pro-quo everywhere, and yet the majority of the responsible people/companies remain free to keep doing those. At best we get a few scapegoats or slaps on the wrist. Information alone is useless if you either have nobody that can act on it (think unregulated markets, industries, etc), or the ones that are able to, can't or won't because of the existing power structures, like the example in the article. > The only person here who said that is you I was obviously alluding to the ever-present "communism/socialism is an utopia" argument. I never implied you said that specifically. It's just such a common argument that I assumed could be raised since I mentioned the word and I expanded on it.