Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 267 posts

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#171

Post by Nav_Panel »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #153
Nav_Panel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situations you mention involve antitrust law and unfair competition, with the intent that consumers would benefit from increased competition. Internet companies are different, and specifically Facebook is different, because its customers are advertising companies and its product is the eyeballs of its users. Ironically, the closest contemporary internet analogy to your examples is Net Neutrality... Any legislatio…

Antitrust law, specifically the Sherman Antitrust Act, does not talk about customers as much as "protecting consumers" from "abuses", broadly defined. In my discussions in New York political circles, many see a Facebook antitrust case as a paved road to a Governorship.

> Sherman Antitrust Act

Broadly defined, in terms of economics. I don't see much discussion of Facebook with regards to "market competition". It's free to use, tough to argue that prices are being artificially inflated when there are none.

But I also don't doubt that antitrust suits are how legislators want to pursue action against Facebook.

EDIT: The justification I could see is that (1) advertising prices are being artificially inflated, which is tough given that many other tech companies compete for the same advertising dollars, and (2) that consumers aren't receiving fair compensation for their personal data, but even that doesn't seem like a good fit for anti-trust law.

> In my discussions in New York political circles, many see a Facebook antitrust case as a paved road to a Governorship

As a lifetime NYS and current NYC resident, I sure wont be basing my vote for governor on whether they take action against Facebook. I'd see it as an attempt to use the governor position as a stepping stone to federal government. This state has more pressing regional problems to deal with, in my opinion.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#172

Post by bertil »

specializeded wrote: post #163
bertil wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It allows me to keep in contact with many of my close friends and my family who live on three continent and more countries than I can count on a daily basis, has helped me find work a dozen times, has provided several companies who I worked for with credible identity, spectacular growth via targeted advertising. I can use Uber, AirBnB and so many more and not fear that the people with whom I share a car or a flat wit…

The moral equivalent of a gish gallop, might want to trim this a bit for an actual reply to come through...

I don't.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#174

Post by lovich »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #167
lovich wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this view stated several times this week on hackernews. Ive always seen it stated with no evidence. How is it not the people vs the corporations? Take any environmental disaster, BP in the gulf for instance. They cut costs on construction which caused a disaster and ruined the environment and livelihoods for thousands of people. They did this to put more money in their pockets. It's not like they were tryin…

> How is it not the people vs the corporations? Take any environmental disaster, BP in the gulf for instance I am not pushing back on the underlying debates, just the way they're lumped together. Characterizing BP vs. the people of the Gulf as "corporation versus the people" muddies the water. Small, incorporated fishing companies were hit particularly badly by the spill. Meanwhile, certain private individuals did qu…

Companies lobby together for rules that help them at the expense of everyone else. Yes they'll compete against each other, but is there more than a handful of instances where a company lobbied for better protections for laboror society over something that helped themselves? Of course not, that's how they're set up.

If they we're people they would all be diagnosed as sociopaths. They treat the relationship between themselves and labor and themselves and society as either zero sum or an attempt at rent extraction. The only reasonable way to treat them is in kind at this point

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#175

Post by hammock »

specialist wrote: post #151
rememberlenny wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key here is governance . ------------ I think if you click into the linked post, you get the analogy regarding governments and governance . Web platforms have to concern themselves with governance of their users and the respective eco-system that their users operate on. The point is less to be abstract or symbolic, and instead look at the concrete decisions they have to make. Corporations or general relationships…

Emphatic agreement. Governance is the final frontier. By that I mean "How are grievances adjudicated?" Any one struggling with the "platforms as government" analogy might think of MMORPGs instead.

The final frontier is coercion... threat to life and liberty. Saying MMORPG is a government because the game controls the adjudication of your grievances is like saying Macy's is a government because Macy's Customer Service adjudicates your grievances. Except when it doesn't. Except when the FTC, or the FBI, or any other (real) government overrules them.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#176

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lovich wrote: post #174
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it not the people vs the corporations? Take any environmental disaster, BP in the gulf for instance I am not pushing back on the underlying debates, just the way they're lumped together. Characterizing BP vs. the people of the Gulf as "corporation versus the people" muddies the water. Small, incorporated fishing companies were hit particularly badly by the spill. Meanwhile, certain private individuals did qu…

Companies lobby together for rules that help them at the expense of everyone else. Yes they'll compete against each other, but is there more than a handful of instances where a company lobbied for better protections for laboror society over something that helped themselves? Of course not, that's how they're set up. If they we're people they would all be diagnosed as sociopaths. They treat the relationship between the…

> Companies lobby together for rules that help them at the expense of everyone else

Industries and like-minded companies lobby together. Even the Chamber of Commerce, one of the broader commercial lobbyists, only represents a streak of American business.

Charging a problem as "people versus corporations" is a good way to shut it own. Identifying specific victims and offenders, on the other hand, is how one motivates change.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#177

Post by nickpp »

laughingman2 wrote: post #159
nickpp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A well functioning government, does, ideally, what you describe. But most governments in the world (maybe except a few western ones) are, as I was saying, incredibly disfunctional. And when governments misbehave, they kill: wars, corruption, suppression, etc. Forgive me if I’ll prefer businesses over governments every day.

Even if the power of individual vote seems very small, It can be used to instigate change. One can argue that in order to increase the power of people, one has to reduce the power of corporation lobbying etc. Corporations are vast entities of unaccountable power when they are unregulated by a government. Chomsky's criticism of corporations holds good, and is becoming prophetic in all accounts. https://www.youtube.com…

Just recent elections show "the power of the individual vote" used to support things like Brexit in UK, Orban in Hungary, Xi in China, Putin in Russia, Maduro in Venezuela or, why not, Trump.

While the evil corporations give us, what, surveillance?!

We've never lived under corporations, but we’d always fear them. I for one, fear more the evil I know and I see ruining our world: politicians and their instruments of power, governments.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#178

Post by clairity »

pitaj wrote: post #126
clairity wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it may not be heresy but it is naive. a market economy requires a supporting political environment from which to develop. you need both, and both need tending by citizens. nothing about a company makes it implicitly better than a government (being able to start a company is good for you, but how do i know you're not a jerk?), and both need vigilance to keep in line.

Companies compete for your time, money, and labor. Governments have no competition. Even if you think natural monopolies are a true facet of free markets, Facebook is not a natural monopoly. MySpace is a simple counterexample to that idea.

that's an inadequate rebuttal built on an idealization of free markets (we should strive for fair markets, not free-for-all markets).

of course competition for governments lay in ideas, thoughts, policies, and actions, not markets. in various forms of democracy, politicians vie for our votes, and that forms a web of constraints against greedy self-interest. besides, there are many goverments, and many levels of governments, all jostling with each other for the title of "best".

there's no need to revere free markets and abhor goverments (we should be vigilant of both). economic and political arenas are but two facets of our complex societies.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#179

Post by pitaj »

vanderZwan wrote: post #161
pitaj wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook wields absolute power over the platform, true. They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. Everyone on Facebook is on there voluntarily. People don't get to choose where they are born. Don't get me wrong. I don't use Facebook, and I don't think anyone else should either. I would love if there were a (decentralized) replacement for it, and I think Facebook is on the way out.

> They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. I think you should elaborate on your definition of coercion here and what does and does not lie within its boundaries.

Coercion is the initialization of the use of force or fraud against another person or their property.

Facebook exercising their power over their own platform is not coercion. People do not own their Facebook pages.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#180

Post by pitaj »

wiz21c wrote: post #169
pitaj wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook wields absolute power over the platform, true. They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. Everyone on Facebook is on there voluntarily. People don't get to choose where they are born. Don't get me wrong. I don't use Facebook, and I don't think anyone else should either. I would love if there were a (decentralized) replacement for it, and I think Facebook is on the way out.

> They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. It's muuuuuuuuch worse than that. They actually hire people (20000 if I trust my local media) to actually "clean" facebook. So it means that facebook defines what is socially acceptable and what is not. And, contrary to the law, the definition is not written, not shared. I'd prefer physical coercion (normally attributed to police) any time.

Coercion is the initialization of the use of force or fraud against another person or their property.

Facebook exercising their power over their own platform is not coercion. People do not own their Facebook pages.

Post reply on HN