6 ms·

How about we break up the tech industry instead? This muskian "I am above laws so I'll break up the USA/EU" is asinine and societies should come down on it lik

How about we break up the tech industry instead? This muskian "I am above laws so I'll break up the USA/EU" is asinine and societies should come down on it like a ton of bricks.

eddythompson80 10mo ago
Is the assumption that non "tech industry" communities (e.g: voat, parler, ovaries, gab, truth, lemmy, mastodon, 4chan, 8chan, etc) are less likely to be a problem or to negatively impact teens than the mainstream "big tech" ones (e.g: facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, reddit, etc)?
- rockertalker 10mo ago
  I think if you run a website as a main source of your business profitable or not you’re in the tech industry. It’s a question of scale not industry classification or purpose classification.
- betteryet 10mo ago
  Not my point. The original comment said the tech industry can decide to break up the federal government because they don't want to be forced to clean up their act. Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. If the tech industry is against that, then they should be the ones broken up.
  - jMyles 10mo ago
    > Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. But societies also need to be stronger than states, especially in an age of connection and sharing. States are the main source of uncertainty and violence in the world right now, and I think it's reasonable to hope that the internet will bring the age of peace we pray for. Obviously the social media giants are not it. They are closer to states than they are to algorithms. But I'm wary of siding with states over web apps. What we need are healthier (meaning, chiefly, more decentralized and less rent-seeking) web apps.
    - betteryet 10mo ago
      Exactly, societies need to be stronger than states too and really need to act early. States can become one person or party and it's game over for a long time. Actually, the American Constitution is pretty great at preventing this exact outcome and I still have a lot of faith in it.
      - kazen44 10mo ago
        but the constitution is just a piece of paper with some words written on it. Without an active civic society protection what is enshrined in the document, it is all but powerless.
    - eddythompson80 10mo ago
      > I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. As long as it's not farming, defense or healthcare of course. Historically speaking at least.
    - thegrimmest 10mo ago
      > They are closer to states than they are to algorithms This seems like nonsense. All the tech industry does is convince people. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. States have a monopoly on violence. No one holds a gun to anyone's head forcing them to consume <insert content you disagree with>. In a country of equals, everyone's opinion, including <position you disagree with>, should hold equal sway, and be resolved via democratic due process. Just because many people hold <position you disagree with> and vote for <politician you find repugnant> doesn't give you any sort of reasonable justification to limit the freedom of others to advocate (including on social media) for it.
      - jMyles 10mo ago
        I agree with everything you've said with regard to the justice of the matter, but I don't think that there is a free market at work in social media. * So-called "intellectual property" laws dramatically skew what can and cannot be shared * Censorship at the behest of world governments is rampant, and completely overran anything representing a nonviolent scientific dialogue during the recent COVID19 pandemic * States, with their monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force, pick winners and losers at every level of the experience, from chip makers to the duopolistic mobile OS vendors to their app stores to the social media offerings. Sure, network effect may describe the reason people join and stay, but the availability of places to join and stay is in no sense a market phenomenon Consider: the major social media barons meet with POTUS all the freakin' time. Do you suppose that's just because they enjoy his company?
- biophysboy 10mo ago
  The thing with those alternative communities is that they sort of orbit around the larger tech platforms. Their agenda is set by the news-of-the-day within certain X/FB/YouTube subcommunities. Its sort of analogous to wire services in traditional media. Additionally, people that post on those platforms originally gained notoriety on the bigger tech platforms, and took their audience with them.
atmosx 10mo ago
I agree. It’s just there has not been a pro-EU vote in any form or capacity by any EU population. So the stopped doing referendums but the EU grew only even more unpopular- and lately with VDL and KK, its as if its a cruel joke we all expect for it to end soon.
- victorbjorklund 10mo ago
  What are you talking about? Lots of countries have voted to join EU. Any country can leave when they want. EU is still popular in most countries.
  - atmosx 10mo ago
    Can you name a referendum of a country within the EU that has to do with the EU in some form or capacity and received a positive vote? Netherlands, France, Italy and Greece all voted at a certain point in time. The result was always a “no”. The EU is not popular, within Europe, at all. Maybe the idea is great, but the implementation is certainly not.
    - kazen44 10mo ago
      what are you on about? this idea of a referendum is a straw man. Member states joined the EU through mechanisms of their state. (Acts of parlements, referendum or something else). Also, the votes you are described are all about the implementation of certain ideas/legislation inside the context of the EU, not about the organisation itself?
      - atmosx 10mo ago
        > what are you on about? I'm a European citizen, stating the obvious. Happens to be the contrary of what most ppl in here think it is. > Member states joined the EU through mechanisms of their state. (Acts of parlements, referendum or something else). They did. That was a long time ago. When the EU was created the expectation was to align salaries, social welfare networks through access to cheap lending through the common currency, even though politicians like Margaret Thatcher understood the role of the ECB the moment it was proposed. Indeed her last speech as a PM in the house of commons is legendary[^1]. > Also, the votes you are described are all about the implementation of certain ideas/legislation inside the context of the EU, not about the organisation itself? Most voters don't make that distinction. The fact that every time a government wants to implement an unpopular idea uses the EU as an excuse doesn't help ofc. To recap: given the opportunity, the majority of countries in Europe would choose to live the EU today, if you ask them. It was much easier for the UK to do so, because they were not part of the monetary union. [^1]: "[...] the point of that kind of Europe with a central bank is no democracy, taking powers away from every single Parliament, and having a single currency, a monetary policy and interest rates which take all political power away from us.", M. Thatcher, Excerpt from her last speeh as UK's PM (1990).
RobotToaster 10mo ago
Why not both?
stronglikedan 10mo ago
It's not going to happen, at least not in the land of crony capitalism.
eikenberry 10mo ago
Because Fedgov stopped any real anti-trust regulation over a century ago and have shown they have no will nor ability to change that since.

How about we break up the tech industry instead? This muskian "I am above laws so I'll break up the USA/EU" is asinine and societies should come down on it like a ton of bricks.

eddythompson80 10mo ago

Is the assumption that non "tech industry" communities (e.g: voat, parler, ovaries, gab, truth, lemmy, mastodon, 4chan, 8chan, etc) are less likely to be a problem or to negatively impact teens than the mainstream "big tech" ones (e.g: facebook, twitter, youtube, tiktok, reddit, etc)?

rockertalker 10mo ago
I think if you run a website as a main source of your business profitable or not you’re in the tech industry. It’s a question of scale not industry classification or purpose classification.
betteryet 10mo ago
Not my point. The original comment said the tech industry can decide to break up the federal government because they don't want to be forced to clean up their act. Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. If the tech industry is against that, then they should be the ones broken up.
- jMyles 10mo ago
  > Societies should be stronger than any industry and fight to maintain freedom, health, peace, and prosperity. I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. But societies also need to be stronger than states, especially in an age of connection and sharing. States are the main source of uncertainty and violence in the world right now, and I think it's reasonable to hope that the internet will bring the age of peace we pray for. Obviously the social media giants are not it. They are closer to states than they are to algorithms. But I'm wary of siding with states over web apps. What we need are healthier (meaning, chiefly, more decentralized and less rent-seeking) web apps.
  - betteryet 10mo ago
    Exactly, societies need to be stronger than states too and really need to act early. States can become one person or party and it's game over for a long time. Actually, the American Constitution is pretty great at preventing this exact outcome and I still have a lot of faith in it.
    - kazen44 10mo ago
      but the constitution is just a piece of paper with some words written on it. Without an active civic society protection what is enshrined in the document, it is all but powerless.
  - eddythompson80 10mo ago
    > I think (I hope!) we all agree with this sentiment. As long as it's not farming, defense or healthcare of course. Historically speaking at least.
  - thegrimmest 10mo ago
    > They are closer to states than they are to algorithms This seems like nonsense. All the tech industry does is convince people. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. States have a monopoly on violence. No one holds a gun to anyone's head forcing them to consume <insert content you disagree with>. In a country of equals, everyone's opinion, including <position you disagree with>, should hold equal sway, and be resolved via democratic due process. Just because many people hold <position you disagree with> and vote for <politician you find repugnant> doesn't give you any sort of reasonable justification to limit the freedom of others to advocate (including on social media) for it.
    - jMyles 10mo ago
      I agree with everything you've said with regard to the justice of the matter, but I don't think that there is a free market at work in social media. * So-called "intellectual property" laws dramatically skew what can and cannot be shared * Censorship at the behest of world governments is rampant, and completely overran anything representing a nonviolent scientific dialogue during the recent COVID19 pandemic * States, with their monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force, pick winners and losers at every level of the experience, from chip makers to the duopolistic mobile OS vendors to their app stores to the social media offerings. Sure, network effect may describe the reason people join and stay, but the availability of places to join and stay is in no sense a market phenomenon Consider: the major social media barons meet with POTUS all the freakin' time. Do you suppose that's just because they enjoy his company?
biophysboy 10mo ago
The thing with those alternative communities is that they sort of orbit around the larger tech platforms. Their agenda is set by the news-of-the-day within certain X/FB/YouTube subcommunities. Its sort of analogous to wire services in traditional media. Additionally, people that post on those platforms originally gained notoriety on the bigger tech platforms, and took their audience with them.

atmosx 10mo ago

I agree. It’s just there has not been a pro-EU vote in any form or capacity by any EU population. So the stopped doing referendums but the EU grew only even more unpopular- and lately with VDL and KK, its as if its a cruel joke we all expect for it to end soon.

victorbjorklund 10mo ago
What are you talking about? Lots of countries have voted to join EU. Any country can leave when they want. EU is still popular in most countries.
- atmosx 10mo ago
  Can you name a referendum of a country within the EU that has to do with the EU in some form or capacity and received a positive vote? Netherlands, France, Italy and Greece all voted at a certain point in time. The result was always a “no”. The EU is not popular, within Europe, at all. Maybe the idea is great, but the implementation is certainly not.
  - kazen44 10mo ago
    what are you on about? this idea of a referendum is a straw man. Member states joined the EU through mechanisms of their state. (Acts of parlements, referendum or something else). Also, the votes you are described are all about the implementation of certain ideas/legislation inside the context of the EU, not about the organisation itself?
    - atmosx 10mo ago
      > what are you on about? I'm a European citizen, stating the obvious. Happens to be the contrary of what most ppl in here think it is. > Member states joined the EU through mechanisms of their state. (Acts of parlements, referendum or something else). They did. That was a long time ago. When the EU was created the expectation was to align salaries, social welfare networks through access to cheap lending through the common currency, even though politicians like Margaret Thatcher understood the role of the ECB the moment it was proposed. Indeed her last speech as a PM in the house of commons is legendary[^1]. > Also, the votes you are described are all about the implementation of certain ideas/legislation inside the context of the EU, not about the organisation itself? Most voters don't make that distinction. The fact that every time a government wants to implement an unpopular idea uses the EU as an excuse doesn't help ofc. To recap: given the opportunity, the majority of countries in Europe would choose to live the EU today, if you ask them. It was much easier for the UK to do so, because they were not part of the monetary union. [^1]: "[...] the point of that kind of Europe with a central bank is no democracy, taking powers away from every single Parliament, and having a single currency, a monetary policy and interest rates which take all political power away from us.", M. Thatcher, Excerpt from her last speeh as UK's PM (1990).

RobotToaster 10mo ago

Why not both?

stronglikedan 10mo ago

It's not going to happen, at least not in the land of crony capitalism.

eikenberry 10mo ago

Because Fedgov stopped any real anti-trust regulation over a century ago and have shown they have no will nor ability to change that since.