5 ms·

I wish that instead of wasting time on antitrust cases, that the government would just directly fund competition by incentivizing it. I.e, the first company to

I wish that instead of wasting time on antitrust cases, that the government would just directly fund competition by incentivizing it. I.e, the first company to reach x% browser market share will receive $x million (billion?) in prize money or, the first company to build an LLM-based search engine with x% market share will receive $n million Or structure as a direct investment or heavy tax breaks. Always better to incentivize competition versus punish success. Or even better, if government wants to break up "ACME corp" then just tell the employees that, if you leave "ACME corp" and start your own company competing with ACME corp, we will waive taxes on all income for your first five profitable years.

crabmusket 2y ago
Instead of spending millions or billions on giveaways to private companies, why not fund a public alternative? Sure, search isn't cheap. But governments should consider information access to be of key importance to democratic participation. An open source, public benefit search engine would be a really valuable thing to have, which no private company does or ever will find it viable to provide. And I don't even want it to be the only search engine. Commercial search engines will probably still have the edge in various ways, for various use cases. But why not have a public option as one point in the landscape? If someone is going to "organise the world's information" I'd prefer it to be a democratically controlled government, not an unaccountable for-profit corporation. I know that's an ideological position that many here won't share.
- km144 2y ago
  The bleak reality is that most Americans trust private corporations more than their own government. Government-sponsored search is literally 1984. If it's just a competitor, we've seen that unless there is an external force driving the initiatives, government ventures are often just less successful than unfettered private corporations (e.g. NASA post Space Race).
- anon291 2y ago
  American society is by-and-large self-organizing and this is an American bias. America has done quite well for itself (better than many countries in fact) and so I see no need to drastically change this simply to have search competition. It's fine to have your ideological position, but there's really no need for it.
mulmen 2y ago
How does cementing early leaders benefit consumers? This seems like the opposite of what the government should be doing to incentivize competition and innovation.
- anon291 2y ago
  Doesn't cement early leaders at all, since, the moment you win the prize, there's another one immediately offered for the guy to beat you.
j2kun 2y ago
They're not punishing success, they're punishing illegal behavior. Breaking up monopolies has a long, successful track record.
- anon291 2y ago
  From a human rights perspective, there is no unethical behavior. You are allowed to invent things, sell those things, and profit from those things. It's a fundamental human right. The entire antitrust concept is concerning honestly.
  - j2kun 2y ago
    Of all the human rights you could come up with, "maximizing shareholder value (at the expense of society)" is the silliest.
causal 2y ago
The government does a lot to fund and incentivize startups. It can do more than one thing at a time.

crabmusket 2y ago

Instead of spending millions or billions on giveaways to private companies, why not fund a public alternative? Sure, search isn't cheap. But governments should consider information access to be of key importance to democratic participation. An open source, public benefit search engine would be a really valuable thing to have, which no private company does or ever will find it viable to provide. And I don't even want it to be the only search engine. Commercial search engines will probably still have the edge in various ways, for various use cases. But why not have a public option as one point in the landscape? If someone is going to "organise the world's information" I'd prefer it to be a democratically controlled government, not an unaccountable for-profit corporation. I know that's an ideological position that many here won't share.

km144 2y ago
The bleak reality is that most Americans trust private corporations more than their own government. Government-sponsored search is literally 1984. If it's just a competitor, we've seen that unless there is an external force driving the initiatives, government ventures are often just less successful than unfettered private corporations (e.g. NASA post Space Race).
anon291 2y ago
American society is by-and-large self-organizing and this is an American bias. America has done quite well for itself (better than many countries in fact) and so I see no need to drastically change this simply to have search competition. It's fine to have your ideological position, but there's really no need for it.

mulmen 2y ago

How does cementing early leaders benefit consumers? This seems like the opposite of what the government should be doing to incentivize competition and innovation.

anon291 2y ago
Doesn't cement early leaders at all, since, the moment you win the prize, there's another one immediately offered for the guy to beat you.

j2kun 2y ago

They're not punishing success, they're punishing illegal behavior. Breaking up monopolies has a long, successful track record.

anon291 2y ago
From a human rights perspective, there is no unethical behavior. You are allowed to invent things, sell those things, and profit from those things. It's a fundamental human right. The entire antitrust concept is concerning honestly.
- j2kun 2y ago
  Of all the human rights you could come up with, "maximizing shareholder value (at the expense of society)" is the silliest.

causal 2y ago

The government does a lot to fund and incentivize startups. It can do more than one thing at a time.