13 ms·

A company that provides a phone service (mobile or other) has to conform to a large amount of regulatory red tape. Why? because either a company before tried to

A company that provides a phone service (mobile or other) has to conform to a large amount of regulatory red tape. Why? because either a company before tried to monopolise the entire country, or they killed someone. Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people (unlike say tobacco, or talc powder, 3M and half of their solvents, weed killer, most car makers, etc etc) but they have been trying desperately to stop all competition. They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. Because regulators in the USA are hamstrung, they are used to being able to basically doing stuff that would be illegal if it were in physical stores/pre-existing industries.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
> but they have been trying desperately to stop all competition. Every large company in every industry wants to do this. > They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits?
- ktosobcy 2y ago
  > Every large company in every industry wants to do this. And the point of regulation is to stop it and bring balance. Or are you happy with mono-/oligopolies?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    I'm fine with regulation to prevent monopolies / duopolies. In practice, regulation almost never actually does that. Every major industry is a monopoly or duopoly if you're even a bit generous with the term. I'm just pointing out there is nothing unique here with tech or data. And the politics are mostly theater that often makes things more monopolistic, not less.
    - shermantanktop 2y ago
      I read that as saying there's nothing to be done, monopolies are natural, we can't stop the order of things without making everything worse, we must just acquiesce and learn to live with them. Is that correct? I have a hard time thinking that is true.
    - ameister14 2y ago
      I think you're making a mistake confusing the way things are today in terms of market concentration with the way things were in the past. In terms of market concentration in the US at least, things were massively different even 20 years ago. Adding a link to the Boston Fed report on it from a couple years ago: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspectives/2022/cost-price-relationships-in-a-concentrated-economy.aspx https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspe...
- NegativeK 2y ago
  > Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits? People keep talking about the obligation to shareholders for a company to maximize profits, but there's a wide list of possibilities between not doing that and seeking to actively, wholesale ruin privacy. I expect the people in companies to take responsibility for their actions instead of pretending that they're beholden to the company's wants.
  - loa_in_ 2y ago
    "We share the risk but the profit is mine" company mindset is no better than medieval thuggery
- johnchristopher 2y ago
  > > They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. > Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits? And that's how you justify children in cobalt mines I suppose ?
- account42 2y ago
  Why do you expect countries to not restrict how companies can pursue profits to protect their citizens?
buzzert 2y ago
> They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. Because regulators in the USA are hamstrung, they are used to being able to basically doing stuff that would be illegal if it were in physical stores/pre-existing industries. Did you actually read the article? I don't know how you square this kobayashi maru situation, unless you think Meta is outright lying about it: > Europe recently charged Meta with breaching EU regulations over its “pay or consent” plan. Meta’s business is built around personalized ads, which are worth far more than non-personalized ads. EU regulators required that Meta provide an option that did not involve tracking user data, so Meta created a paid model that would allow users to pay a fee for an ad-free service. This was already a significant concession—personalized ads are so valuable that one analyst estimated paid users would bring in 60 percent less revenue. But EU regulators are now insisting this model also breaches the rules, saying that Meta fails to provide a less personalized but equivalent version of Meta’s social networks. They’re demanding that Meta provide free full services without personalized ads or a monthly fee for users. In a very real sense, the EU has ruled that Meta’s core business model is illegal. Non-personalized ads cannot economically sustain Meta’s services, but it’s the only solution EU regulators want to accept. Also, what about the CUDA situation? I don't see how any consumer is harmed by this, which is quite different from a social media company doing its thing.
- skywhopper 2y ago
  lol. You don’t think Meta would outright lie about this stuff? They have been for years and years. Why is this different?
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  >In a very real sense, the EU has ruled that Meta’s core business model is illegal. Is this actually bad?
  - echelon 2y ago
    You're free to not be a user, but millions of other people want it.
newsclues 2y ago
Do companies need onerous regulations that increase costs for consumers or do they need the incentive in form of not having their corporate charter cancelled and corporate officers banned from doing business as a threat to maintain a fair market?
pembrook 2y ago
Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens, because doing something new always involves unknown risk. Most people aren't entrepreneurs and hate risk, so they pass regulation, and the market gets locked down so nothing new happens again. Incumbents and their army of lawyers can easily comply or are grandfathered in, and challengers are permanently disadvantaged. That market is officially dead until the next fundamental leap forward in technology. What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all. Combine this with a rapidly aging demography in Europe, and I only see this trend increasing. If there's one thing old people hate, it's risk and doing new things. Meanwhile, those same old folks are expecting massive payouts (social benefits) via taxation of the same private sector they're currently kneecapping with red tape. While ironic, those two trends converging aren't great for Europe.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. I'm against the way it's being applied to Apple. I don't think that the government should dictate that consumers aren't allowed to choose a platform that's a locked down walled garden if that's what they want. We have platforms that aren't walled gardens (Android) that many of us happily use (myself included), and Apple shouldn't have to become something that it didn't set out to be just because a few other big tech companies feel stifled by Apple's rules.
  - fl0id 2y ago
    this argument doesn't work, because you could always argue that the consumer chose this product, and thus its features and practices should be allowed. Apple had it coming for a long time already, one way or another. And Microsoft also will again the way they are going.
usr1106 2y ago
> Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people (unlike say tobacco, or talc powder, 3M and half of their solvents, weed killer, most car makers, etc etc) It's nearly as bad. Social media causes addiction and mental health problems especially for the youth. PISA scores are going down. It can already be seen now, although not many 20 year olds have had a smartphone for more than 10 years. Here in this country every 7 year old has a smartphone and it will get only worse. Physical health is impacted because of kids are tapping on a screen instead of running and playing. It has impact already to language learning and social development of babies because parents interact with their smartphone several hours a day and instead of interacting with their baby. Of course there is other tech than social media and smartphones. But at least in these areas equally strong regulation as for tobacco and alcohol would be required.
baq 2y ago
> Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people Teen suicides are a thing. It isn’t lung cancer, sure, but it also isn’t nothing.
- xvector 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sdf4j 2y ago
    social networks are not modern technology
  - baq 2y ago
    Why would I want to do that? Do you routinely compare apples with oranges?
    - refurb 2y ago
      The only complete analysis is risk vs. benefit. We don't look at heart transplants and say "look how many people died! we should ban them"
      - remram 2y ago
        We can't regulate social networks or ban AI because of heart transplants?
        xvector 2y ago
        [flagged]
        remram 2y ago
        I don't know how you jump from "innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum" to "we will never innovate again if we regulate social network use by teens".
fallingknife 2y ago
What do they do that would be illegal in physical stores? If I wanted to open a physical store that gave away free stuff but you had to agree to give a bunch of personal info that would be completely legal (but not profitable).
kube-system 2y ago
The move-fast-and-break-things mentality of many tech companies has absolutely killed people. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/parents-kids-died-after-drugs-snapchat-speak-ahead/story?id=104040833 https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/parents-kids-died-after-dr... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicide-ruling-britain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicid... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-scooter-electric-bike-accidents-rise-last-four-years/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-scooter-electric-bike-... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-sues-airbnb-19-month-old-dies-fentanyl-toxicity-florida-vacatio-rcna73536 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-sues-airbnb-19-m... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/rohingya-seek-reparations-facebook-role-massacre-rcna49956 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/rohingya-seek-reparat... https://www.thedrive.com/news/40234/no-one-was-driving-in-tesla-autopilot-crash-that-killed-two-in-texas-police https://www.thedrive.com/news/40234/no-one-was-driving-in-te... "full-self-driving doesn't self drive", "wear a helmet on the bird scooter", and "safety is our first priority at facebook" is the 21st century version of "don't get roundup all over yourself"
- xvector 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kube-system 2y ago
    I don't disagree, in general. Roundup also fed many people. But there are certainly poor choices evident in the above examples that weren't necessary for the progress to be made, but were just disregarded by an organization operating without guardrails. They deserve the pressure to course correct.
  - Wurdan 2y ago
    Not all progress is good progress. Adding lead to paint was progress at the time. Same with using asbestos for insulation. We’ve since decided that the costs outweigh the benefits there. Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
> large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people Facebook's and Twitter's recommended feed algorithms and blocking procedures, have to a significant extent determined the outcome of elections, coup attempts, protest movements. These companies have custom tuned their algorithms for particular countries at particular times, during such events. Many people have died, or their lives negatively affected because of the decisions by these companies.
- jhickok 2y ago
  Not to mention the effect of platforms like Facebook and Instagram on young boys and girls.
worldsayshi 2y ago
I have a feeling there's a lot of analogies to be had between parenting, regulation and AI alignment. All three are about trying to persuade an intelligent organism to adopt acceptable, rich and virtuous behaviour. All three seems to have similar failure modes. Too much red tape and you'll get over fitting, lack of creative and new behaviour.
- Arn_Thor 2y ago
  Except listed companies are sociopathic. They have no empathy. And their only goal is shareholder value. There’s no appealing to their conscience, so carrots and sticks it is
dirtsoc 2y ago
Do increases in suicide rates from social media addiction count? There are emails unearthed from the early days of Facebook where utilizing addiction feedback loops were discussed to retain and maximize young users. The Anxious Generation provides a lot of evidence correlating the rise of social media and a major increase in depression and anxiety related disorders.
- polski-g 2y ago
  When controlled for testosterone levels, how do the suicide rates look?
cen4 2y ago
Most importantly all this tech is not reducing cost of living, but is increasing it. Tech is reducing prices of compute and memory and software but everyone's monthly bill increases. This is only possible through parasitic behavior. And we know how to kill parasites. The life and times of a parasite are not as fun as the worthies who come up with these unsustainable business models think.
esalman 2y ago
Large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people in the same way big tobacco haven't killed any people. Nobody smokes a cigarette and immediately die. But one would have to be immensely dense not to see the correlation between smoking habit and lung disease, or Facebook refusing to moderate social media activity in Burma and some of the worst atrocities committed on humans anywhere this century.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  Smoking is causative - did you mean to imply the same for the Burna situation?
kragen 2y ago
> A company that provides a phone service (mobile or other) has to conform to a large amount of regulatory red tape. Why? because either a company before tried to monopolise the entire country, or they killed someone. you sweet summer child no, that's not how the red tape got put in place. the government put the red tape in place to protect the established companies in the space from upstart competitors
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Large tech companies have killed: Apple kills migrant workers in China when fires break out or through stress, Samsung kills women working with solvents banned in the US, Exxon kills oil rig workers operating dangerously, etc.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

> but they have been trying desperately to stop all competition. Every large company in every industry wants to do this. > They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits?

ktosobcy 2y ago
> Every large company in every industry wants to do this. And the point of regulation is to stop it and bring balance. Or are you happy with mono-/oligopolies?
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  I'm fine with regulation to prevent monopolies / duopolies. In practice, regulation almost never actually does that. Every major industry is a monopoly or duopoly if you're even a bit generous with the term. I'm just pointing out there is nothing unique here with tech or data. And the politics are mostly theater that often makes things more monopolistic, not less.
  - shermantanktop 2y ago
    I read that as saying there's nothing to be done, monopolies are natural, we can't stop the order of things without making everything worse, we must just acquiesce and learn to live with them. Is that correct? I have a hard time thinking that is true.
  - ameister14 2y ago
    I think you're making a mistake confusing the way things are today in terms of market concentration with the way things were in the past. In terms of market concentration in the US at least, things were massively different even 20 years ago. Adding a link to the Boston Fed report on it from a couple years ago: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspectives/2022/cost-price-relationships-in-a-concentrated-economy.aspx https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspe...
NegativeK 2y ago
> Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits? People keep talking about the obligation to shareholders for a company to maximize profits, but there's a wide list of possibilities between not doing that and seeking to actively, wholesale ruin privacy. I expect the people in companies to take responsibility for their actions instead of pretending that they're beholden to the company's wants.
- loa_in_ 2y ago
  "We share the risk but the profit is mine" company mindset is no better than medieval thuggery
johnchristopher 2y ago
> > They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. > Why would you expect a company not to pursue profits? And that's how you justify children in cobalt mines I suppose ?
account42 2y ago
Why do you expect countries to not restrict how companies can pursue profits to protect their citizens?

buzzert 2y ago

> They've also been trying to extract as much personal info as possible for profit. Because regulators in the USA are hamstrung, they are used to being able to basically doing stuff that would be illegal if it were in physical stores/pre-existing industries. Did you actually read the article? I don't know how you square this kobayashi maru situation, unless you think Meta is outright lying about it: > Europe recently charged Meta with breaching EU regulations over its “pay or consent” plan. Meta’s business is built around personalized ads, which are worth far more than non-personalized ads. EU regulators required that Meta provide an option that did not involve tracking user data, so Meta created a paid model that would allow users to pay a fee for an ad-free service. This was already a significant concession—personalized ads are so valuable that one analyst estimated paid users would bring in 60 percent less revenue. But EU regulators are now insisting this model also breaches the rules, saying that Meta fails to provide a less personalized but equivalent version of Meta’s social networks. They’re demanding that Meta provide free full services without personalized ads or a monthly fee for users. In a very real sense, the EU has ruled that Meta’s core business model is illegal. Non-personalized ads cannot economically sustain Meta’s services, but it’s the only solution EU regulators want to accept. Also, what about the CUDA situation? I don't see how any consumer is harmed by this, which is quite different from a social media company doing its thing.

skywhopper 2y ago
lol. You don’t think Meta would outright lie about this stuff? They have been for years and years. Why is this different?
2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
>In a very real sense, the EU has ruled that Meta’s core business model is illegal. Is this actually bad?
- echelon 2y ago
  You're free to not be a user, but millions of other people want it.

newsclues 2y ago

Do companies need onerous regulations that increase costs for consumers or do they need the incentive in form of not having their corporate charter cancelled and corporate officers banned from doing business as a threat to maintain a fair market?

pembrook 2y ago

Nobody is against regulation that disfavors large incumbents to support competition instead. You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. However, virtually every other piece of regulation does the opposite. Regulation usually gets trotted out after the downside of doing [new innovation] is experienced. This always happens, because doing something new always involves unknown risk. Most people aren't entrepreneurs and hate risk, so they pass regulation, and the market gets locked down so nothing new happens again. Incumbents and their army of lawyers can easily comply or are grandfathered in, and challengers are permanently disadvantaged. That market is officially dead until the next fundamental leap forward in technology. What's different now though, is the hysteria over AI is leading regulators to pass this incumbent-cementing regulation before we've even had a chance to experience both the upside and downside, so the innovation never happens at all. Combine this with a rapidly aging demography in Europe, and I only see this trend increasing. If there's one thing old people hate, it's risk and doing new things. Meanwhile, those same old folks are expecting massive payouts (social benefits) via taxation of the same private sector they're currently kneecapping with red tape. While ironic, those two trends converging aren't great for Europe.

lolinder 2y ago
> You'll struggle to find people who are against the Digital Markets Act for this reason. It literally only targets the potential monopolists. I'm against the way it's being applied to Apple. I don't think that the government should dictate that consumers aren't allowed to choose a platform that's a locked down walled garden if that's what they want. We have platforms that aren't walled gardens (Android) that many of us happily use (myself included), and Apple shouldn't have to become something that it didn't set out to be just because a few other big tech companies feel stifled by Apple's rules.
- fl0id 2y ago
  this argument doesn't work, because you could always argue that the consumer chose this product, and thus its features and practices should be allowed. Apple had it coming for a long time already, one way or another. And Microsoft also will again the way they are going.

usr1106 2y ago

> Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people (unlike say tobacco, or talc powder, 3M and half of their solvents, weed killer, most car makers, etc etc) It's nearly as bad. Social media causes addiction and mental health problems especially for the youth. PISA scores are going down. It can already be seen now, although not many 20 year olds have had a smartphone for more than 10 years. Here in this country every 7 year old has a smartphone and it will get only worse. Physical health is impacted because of kids are tapping on a screen instead of running and playing. It has impact already to language learning and social development of babies because parents interact with their smartphone several hours a day and instead of interacting with their baby. Of course there is other tech than social media and smartphones. But at least in these areas equally strong regulation as for tobacco and alcohol would be required.

baq 2y ago

> Now, large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people Teen suicides are a thing. It isn’t lung cancer, sure, but it also isn’t nothing.

xvector 2y ago
[flagged]
- sdf4j 2y ago
  social networks are not modern technology
- baq 2y ago
  Why would I want to do that? Do you routinely compare apples with oranges?
  - refurb 2y ago
    The only complete analysis is risk vs. benefit. We don't look at heart transplants and say "look how many people died! we should ban them"
    - remram 2y ago
      We can't regulate social networks or ban AI because of heart transplants?
      - xvector 2y ago
        [flagged]
        remram 2y ago
        I don't know how you jump from "innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum" to "we will never innovate again if we regulate social network use by teens".

fallingknife 2y ago

What do they do that would be illegal in physical stores? If I wanted to open a physical store that gave away free stuff but you had to agree to give a bunch of personal info that would be completely legal (but not profitable).

kube-system 2y ago

The move-fast-and-break-things mentality of many tech companies has absolutely killed people. https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/parents-kids-died-after-drugs-snapchat-speak-ahead/story?id=104040833 https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/parents-kids-died-after-dr... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicide-ruling-britain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/01/business/instagram-suicid... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-scooter-electric-bike-accidents-rise-last-four-years/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electric-scooter-electric-bike-... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-sues-airbnb-19-month-old-dies-fentanyl-toxicity-florida-vacatio-rcna73536 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-sues-airbnb-19-m... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/rohingya-seek-reparations-facebook-role-massacre-rcna49956 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/rohingya-seek-reparat... https://www.thedrive.com/news/40234/no-one-was-driving-in-tesla-autopilot-crash-that-killed-two-in-texas-police https://www.thedrive.com/news/40234/no-one-was-driving-in-te... "full-self-driving doesn't self drive", "wear a helmet on the bird scooter", and "safety is our first priority at facebook" is the 21st century version of "don't get roundup all over yourself"

xvector 2y ago
[flagged]
- kube-system 2y ago
  I don't disagree, in general. Roundup also fed many people. But there are certainly poor choices evident in the above examples that weren't necessary for the progress to be made, but were just disregarded by an organization operating without guardrails. They deserve the pressure to course correct.
- Wurdan 2y ago
  Not all progress is good progress. Adding lead to paint was progress at the time. Same with using asbestos for insulation. We’ve since decided that the costs outweigh the benefits there. Regulators should and do weigh both the harm and good of restricting the usage of new technology. The fact that they don’t always get it right isn’t a reason to stop regulation altogether.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

> large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people Facebook's and Twitter's recommended feed algorithms and blocking procedures, have to a significant extent determined the outcome of elections, coup attempts, protest movements. These companies have custom tuned their algorithms for particular countries at particular times, during such events. Many people have died, or their lives negatively affected because of the decisions by these companies.

jhickok 2y ago
Not to mention the effect of platforms like Facebook and Instagram on young boys and girls.

worldsayshi 2y ago

I have a feeling there's a lot of analogies to be had between parenting, regulation and AI alignment. All three are about trying to persuade an intelligent organism to adopt acceptable, rich and virtuous behaviour. All three seems to have similar failure modes. Too much red tape and you'll get over fitting, lack of creative and new behaviour.

Arn_Thor 2y ago
Except listed companies are sociopathic. They have no empathy. And their only goal is shareholder value. There’s no appealing to their conscience, so carrots and sticks it is

dirtsoc 2y ago

Do increases in suicide rates from social media addiction count? There are emails unearthed from the early days of Facebook where utilizing addiction feedback loops were discussed to retain and maximize young users. The Anxious Generation provides a lot of evidence correlating the rise of social media and a major increase in depression and anxiety related disorders.

polski-g 2y ago
When controlled for testosterone levels, how do the suicide rates look?

cen4 2y ago

Most importantly all this tech is not reducing cost of living, but is increasing it. Tech is reducing prices of compute and memory and software but everyone's monthly bill increases. This is only possible through parasitic behavior. And we know how to kill parasites. The life and times of a parasite are not as fun as the worthies who come up with these unsustainable business models think.

esalman 2y ago

Large tech companies haven't wholesale killed people in the same way big tobacco haven't killed any people. Nobody smokes a cigarette and immediately die. But one would have to be immensely dense not to see the correlation between smoking habit and lung disease, or Facebook refusing to moderate social media activity in Burma and some of the worst atrocities committed on humans anywhere this century.

edmundsauto 2y ago
Smoking is causative - did you mean to imply the same for the Burna situation?

kragen 2y ago

> A company that provides a phone service (mobile or other) has to conform to a large amount of regulatory red tape. Why? because either a company before tried to monopolise the entire country, or they killed someone. you sweet summer child no, that's not how the red tape got put in place. the government put the red tape in place to protect the established companies in the space from upstart competitors

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Large tech companies have killed: Apple kills migrant workers in China when fires break out or through stress, Samsung kills women working with solvents banned in the US, Exxon kills oil rig workers operating dangerously, etc.