6 ms·

Do big tech companies listen to anything else than fines or loss of income? If there is any other way, that would be preferable

basil-rash 3y ago
[flagged]
- chx 3y ago
  In the spirit of https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 please familiarize yourself with Hobbes' Leviathan and the concept of state monopoly on violence and the advantages of it before embarrassing yourself with posts like this.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    I’m not embarrassed. I occasionally explore contrarian interpretations of events in order to Cunningham a reasonable argument against them into existence. It’s a good exercise in reevaluating one’s internal implicit biases: if no argument exists against hypothesis H, one should reject that hypothesis in favor of the null. In this case the only argument is “I read a book that says X is good”, which isn’t much of an argument at all. Null hypothesis is looking strong. You however should be embarrassed for suggesting folks opinions don’t matter if they haven’t read the same books as you.
    - chx 3y ago
      You completely misunderstood what happened here. I do not argue with you because it's pointless. I recommended a book as a starter in order to get to a point where we can have a discussion. Some things can't be explained in a short comment. You embarrassed yourself not with the statement itself but that it makes crystal clear you have no idea about what underpinnings of a modern state, its interaction with society and so forth.
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      No argument against ~H, or for H, that is.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  > Literally: the barbarians with a monopoly over violence who control the land come by to pillage your spoils, and there’s nothing you can do about it. What makes this analogy particularly funny is that Apple fits the role of the barbarian perfectly. Together with Google they've established an untouchable duopoly and feel empowered to set rules, collect arbitrary fees and threaten violence (banishment) upon every technology company that is forced to work with them.
  - pb7 3y ago
    >violence (banishment) Are we redefining words to fit our agenda now? Edit: Downvoting is violence. :-)
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      Parent comment used the same word to describe fines levied against Apple. It's an analogy, I was just using it in kind. Nobody is threatening Apple with violence either, merely fines.
      - pb7 3y ago
        Parent comment used “monopoly on violence” correctly: the government can physically show up to your house and forcibly imprison you or even kill you if you resist hard enough. No one else can (legally).
        dns_snek 3y ago
        That's great, but it doesn't apply to this situation in a literal sense, so I interpreted it figuratively. If you're going to police the figurative use of words, why don't you go after the parent poster for describing the situation as "barbaric"? Our (mostly) democratically elected leaders and regulators are protecting the EU citizens by imposing fines on misbehaving organizations. That's unquestionably civilized behavior.
      - basil-rash 3y ago
        What do you think happens if the fines aren’t paid? Fines only work because if the implicit threat of violence behind them if the finor is not paid.
- 576768sa 3y ago
  [dead]
bdd8f1df777b 3y ago
Maybe imprisonment of the exec would do too. Unlikely to happen though.
- punnerud 3y ago
  Don’t that also limit innovation by making them to risk averse?
throwaway2037 3y ago
You can say exactly the same for global investment banks. Only when the US and EU starting fining them billions of dollars after the Global Financial Crisis (when banking regulations finally got real teeth) did their behaviour change.
- gitaarik 3y ago
  Or in the Netherlands they at some point obligated companies making commercials for loaning money that they add a message "loaning money costs money". Before that point, there was a booming (sometimes scammy) business regarding that. Or how independent casinos were legal before, and people could still become stinking rich from it (the owners, that is). Until the government made strict rules allowing only them to have "real" casinos, for the people that still really want it, but then at least the government can use the money for something useful.
arlcode 3y ago
Since their only job is to make their shareholders as much money as possible the (potentical) cost of noncompliance must outweigh the cost of compliance. It's silly to expect anything else. Trying to make a profit is a really powerful force to improve the lives of many people as a side effect. So we allow it and now enjoy the benefits. In my opinion it seems like companies need to be confined though and is (sometimes) inherently unable to exert sufficeient self control and will even go so far as to saw off the branch they are sitting on.
gitaarik 3y ago
Well no, that is why we have laws, and if you break the laws, you get punished. But some companies will always try to push the boundaries. They are just experimenting with how far they can go. Kind of similar to children at a certain age. Hopefully these companies will eventually grow up and see that it is way nicer and constructive to play fair and work together in this world. But for the time we need to have the laws and punishments to keep them in place.

basil-rash 3y ago

[flagged]

chx 3y ago
In the spirit of https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 please familiarize yourself with Hobbes' Leviathan and the concept of state monopoly on violence and the advantages of it before embarrassing yourself with posts like this.
- basil-rash 3y ago
  I’m not embarrassed. I occasionally explore contrarian interpretations of events in order to Cunningham a reasonable argument against them into existence. It’s a good exercise in reevaluating one’s internal implicit biases: if no argument exists against hypothesis H, one should reject that hypothesis in favor of the null. In this case the only argument is “I read a book that says X is good”, which isn’t much of an argument at all. Null hypothesis is looking strong. You however should be embarrassed for suggesting folks opinions don’t matter if they haven’t read the same books as you.
  - chx 3y ago
    You completely misunderstood what happened here. I do not argue with you because it's pointless. I recommended a book as a starter in order to get to a point where we can have a discussion. Some things can't be explained in a short comment. You embarrassed yourself not with the statement itself but that it makes crystal clear you have no idea about what underpinnings of a modern state, its interaction with society and so forth.
  - basil-rash 3y ago
    No argument against ~H, or for H, that is.
dns_snek 3y ago
> Literally: the barbarians with a monopoly over violence who control the land come by to pillage your spoils, and there’s nothing you can do about it. What makes this analogy particularly funny is that Apple fits the role of the barbarian perfectly. Together with Google they've established an untouchable duopoly and feel empowered to set rules, collect arbitrary fees and threaten violence (banishment) upon every technology company that is forced to work with them.
- pb7 3y ago
  >violence (banishment) Are we redefining words to fit our agenda now? Edit: Downvoting is violence. :-)
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    Parent comment used the same word to describe fines levied against Apple. It's an analogy, I was just using it in kind. Nobody is threatening Apple with violence either, merely fines.
    - pb7 3y ago
      Parent comment used “monopoly on violence” correctly: the government can physically show up to your house and forcibly imprison you or even kill you if you resist hard enough. No one else can (legally).
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        That's great, but it doesn't apply to this situation in a literal sense, so I interpreted it figuratively. If you're going to police the figurative use of words, why don't you go after the parent poster for describing the situation as "barbaric"? Our (mostly) democratically elected leaders and regulators are protecting the EU citizens by imposing fines on misbehaving organizations. That's unquestionably civilized behavior.
    - basil-rash 3y ago
      What do you think happens if the fines aren’t paid? Fines only work because if the implicit threat of violence behind them if the finor is not paid.
576768sa 3y ago
[dead]

bdd8f1df777b 3y ago

Maybe imprisonment of the exec would do too. Unlikely to happen though.

punnerud 3y ago
Don’t that also limit innovation by making them to risk averse?

throwaway2037 3y ago

You can say exactly the same for global investment banks. Only when the US and EU starting fining them billions of dollars after the Global Financial Crisis (when banking regulations finally got real teeth) did their behaviour change.

gitaarik 3y ago
Or in the Netherlands they at some point obligated companies making commercials for loaning money that they add a message "loaning money costs money". Before that point, there was a booming (sometimes scammy) business regarding that. Or how independent casinos were legal before, and people could still become stinking rich from it (the owners, that is). Until the government made strict rules allowing only them to have "real" casinos, for the people that still really want it, but then at least the government can use the money for something useful.

arlcode 3y ago

Since their only job is to make their shareholders as much money as possible the (potentical) cost of noncompliance must outweigh the cost of compliance. It's silly to expect anything else. Trying to make a profit is a really powerful force to improve the lives of many people as a side effect. So we allow it and now enjoy the benefits. In my opinion it seems like companies need to be confined though and is (sometimes) inherently unable to exert sufficeient self control and will even go so far as to saw off the branch they are sitting on.

gitaarik 3y ago

Well no, that is why we have laws, and if you break the laws, you get punished. But some companies will always try to push the boundaries. They are just experimenting with how far they can go. Kind of similar to children at a certain age. Hopefully these companies will eventually grow up and see that it is way nicer and constructive to play fair and work together in this world. But for the time we need to have the laws and punishments to keep them in place.