3 ms·

Google is not a human right, it is a company and should be allowed to do what it wants, without governmental interference. /European

by thecopy 12y ago

kennu 12y ago
Yet it's good to acknowledge that a small number of companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter are in practice controlling the media consumption of a large (growing) amount of people. They have the power to make fine tuned adjustements in how people perceive the world. It's fully voluntary and people gladly do it because it's so convenient. I don't think that the majority of people will ever perform their searches on multiple search engines to compare their results, in the same way they might buy two different newspapers or watch two different TV news broadcasts. So I think it's a completely new kind of monopoly on worldview, and that the old rules and approaches on dealing with anticompetitive behaviour won't work.
gonvaled 12y ago
Capitalism is the recognition by consumers that human nature is flawed, and that the profit motive is king, and that free enterprise has the potential of benefiting society. The empowerment of a government to interfere in the market is the recognition by the voters that human nature is flawed, and that unless we act together (via legislation) against market forces, sometimes they are simply too strong, and are able to negatively influence society. In those cases, even though we as individuals are theoretically free, the complexity of society and the (flawed) essence of human nature leads us in practice to be at the mercy of the market forces. The point of balance, in a modern democracy, must be set by the voters.
- fwn 12y ago
  "We" don't "act together (via legislation)". Legislation finds it's cause in parliamentarian incentives, cooperation and probably a lot of coincidence. "Market forces" are basically the sum of individual choices and if someone wants to declare them to be necessarily against society, then this peculiar "society" needs to be defined. The point of balance, in every organisational structure, will be set by the humans who build, affect and reproduce it. Not by some idealistic ballot box.
  - gonvaled 12y ago
    Is the system corrupt? Probably! But the government is there to protect the interest of the voters. Democracy is flawed, as is human nature, as is capitalism. There is no pure system. We need a combination of all of them. And, sometimes, we need legislation: very often, to defend us against ourselves (our flawed nature, our procastrination, our inability to understand the complexity around us). Some (maybe those who are not so flawed), will consider that a limitation of their freedom. But they live in this society, and must accept the rules chosen by the majority. They still have the right of arguing for different laws, and convince the majority that those rules are against their own interest. Or they can leave this society and build a country in the middle of the Atlantic (from scratch, not taking anything from our society with them: you can not have it both ways!) The sum of individual forces does not necessarily lead to a system which optimises the well-being of each individual (tragedy of the commons).
ainiriand 12y ago
When a company hast a 'de-facto' monopoly, that can alter the normal behavior of the society and other companies, you cant let them do what they want, you have to put limits. Doing what you say is what has caused the big crisis in 2008 that we are still recovering from. Keep in mind that companies do not want to do what is best for the people, just what gives them more money. That, 'as is', is not a problem, but if the company is powerful enough its just unbearable.

Google is not a human right, it is a company and should be allowed to do what it wants, without governmental interference. /European

by thecopy 12y ago

Google is not a human right, it is a company and should be allowed to do what it wants, without governmental interference. /European

kennu 12y ago

Yet it's good to acknowledge that a small number of companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter are in practice controlling the media consumption of a large (growing) amount of people. They have the power to make fine tuned adjustements in how people perceive the world. It's fully voluntary and people gladly do it because it's so convenient. I don't think that the majority of people will ever perform their searches on multiple search engines to compare their results, in the same way they might buy two different newspapers or watch two different TV news broadcasts. So I think it's a completely new kind of monopoly on worldview, and that the old rules and approaches on dealing with anticompetitive behaviour won't work.

gonvaled 12y ago

Capitalism is the recognition by consumers that human nature is flawed, and that the profit motive is king, and that free enterprise has the potential of benefiting society. The empowerment of a government to interfere in the market is the recognition by the voters that human nature is flawed, and that unless we act together (via legislation) against market forces, sometimes they are simply too strong, and are able to negatively influence society. In those cases, even though we as individuals are theoretically free, the complexity of society and the (flawed) essence of human nature leads us in practice to be at the mercy of the market forces. The point of balance, in a modern democracy, must be set by the voters.

fwn 12y ago
"We" don't "act together (via legislation)". Legislation finds it's cause in parliamentarian incentives, cooperation and probably a lot of coincidence. "Market forces" are basically the sum of individual choices and if someone wants to declare them to be necessarily against society, then this peculiar "society" needs to be defined. The point of balance, in every organisational structure, will be set by the humans who build, affect and reproduce it. Not by some idealistic ballot box.
- gonvaled 12y ago
  Is the system corrupt? Probably! But the government is there to protect the interest of the voters. Democracy is flawed, as is human nature, as is capitalism. There is no pure system. We need a combination of all of them. And, sometimes, we need legislation: very often, to defend us against ourselves (our flawed nature, our procastrination, our inability to understand the complexity around us). Some (maybe those who are not so flawed), will consider that a limitation of their freedom. But they live in this society, and must accept the rules chosen by the majority. They still have the right of arguing for different laws, and convince the majority that those rules are against their own interest. Or they can leave this society and build a country in the middle of the Atlantic (from scratch, not taking anything from our society with them: you can not have it both ways!) The sum of individual forces does not necessarily lead to a system which optimises the well-being of each individual (tragedy of the commons).

ainiriand 12y ago

When a company hast a 'de-facto' monopoly, that can alter the normal behavior of the society and other companies, you cant let them do what they want, you have to put limits. Doing what you say is what has caused the big crisis in 2008 that we are still recovering from. Keep in mind that companies do not want to do what is best for the people, just what gives them more money. That, 'as is', is not a problem, but if the company is powerful enough its just unbearable.