Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful? • Hacker News Board

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#61

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #50

white-flame wrote: post #26

The "tech giants" are creating and controlling core forms of communication, both interpersonal and broadcast/public. That's too important and fundamental to the health of society to allow it to be arbitrarily engineered, filtered, and slanted for maximizing profit. If they were acting like common carriers, it would be a completely different issue. But they're not; they have business models that necessitate the manipu…

I don't buy this argument. The internet providers are de facto pretty close to the common carrier status (except maybe in cases of huge scale, like Netflix or google, where explicit net neutrality might be desirable). There are no huge technical or financial barriers to entry if you want to build a platform for communication over the internet, nothing comparable to e.g. telecom networks (either in 1950s or now). The…

>Would you like newspapers (e.g. that very NYT) be governmentally regulated because they are "too important for society"? It's dangerously close to the late Soviet Union. How effective NYT would be e.g. in uncovering the Watergate case were they regulated "for the common good"? There's a particular fallacy that makes people think that some centralized regulation would be more efficient and lead to better outcomes than self-regulation on a level playing field.

I don't really want media companies regulated too heavily, I want them broken up into many smaller companies. Same thing for big banks and big agriculture and the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies and for data-harvesting tech companies like Google and Facebook. Break them up, force them to compete. I think to the extent that regulation is necessary in tech it should be regulating a common standard by which you can export your social media profile and move it to any other and then mandating complete access to all information a company has on me and a minimum damage value for all information leaks (say $10 per person).

Not every regulation has to be a giant bureaucratic mess. Instead we should look to government to set markets back to their rightful states - lots of information, lots of alternatives, lots of competition between those alternatives and little lock in.

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#62

Post by factorialboy » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

sqdbps wrote: post #47

I really don't understand the self destructive desire to domestically pile on our tech firms while they are being shutout of the Chinese market by the government there which apparently appreciates the importance of these firms so much as to support their local companies financially, politically, and intellectually and on the other front the EU is using every tool at its disposal to hamstring US tech firms. Some comme…

It's deliberate. Opinions are manipulated for power by countries and companies. Our minds are the biggest targets.

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#63

Post by vorpalhex » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:15 PM UTC

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #61

nine_k wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this argument. The internet providers are de facto pretty close to the common carrier status (except maybe in cases of huge scale, like Netflix or google, where explicit net neutrality might be desirable). There are no huge technical or financial barriers to entry if you want to build a platform for communication over the internet, nothing comparable to e.g. telecom networks (either in 1950s or now). The…

>Would you like newspapers (e.g. that very NYT) be governmentally regulated because they are "too important for society"? It's dangerously close to the late Soviet Union. How effective NYT would be e.g. in uncovering the Watergate case were they regulated "for the common good"? There's a particular fallacy that makes people think that some centralized regulation would be more efficient and lead to better outcomes tha…

> a minimum damage value for all information leaks (say $10 per person).

$10 for an email, name or other semi-common info. $100 for a hashed password $1000 for social security, credit card numbers, unhashed password

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#64

Post by wilsonnb2 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:16 PM UTC

fredley wrote: post #59

wilsonnb2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2016, Google donated $167 million in cash and $1 billion in their own products to charitable causes. Microsoft - $135 million in cash, $922 million in product Cisco - $41 million in cash, $245 million in product AT&T - $112 million in cash, $7 million in product Verizon - $56 million in cash, $32 million in product While these companies are around primarily to make a profit, I'm sure that their $460 million dollar…

A viewpoint: charity is power. These companies have control over where this money goes, and are likely to spend more on things that make them look good, or provide long term benefit to the company over things that don't. Another approach might be to take the charity money away from the companies, and have those funds distributed to worthy causes by a democratically appointed body instead: giving the money to causes t…

> A viewpoint: charity is power. These companies have control over where this money goes, and are likely to spend more on things that make them look good, or provide long term benefit to the company over things that don't.

They are more likely to spend it on things that make them look good, which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that these companies are helping people, even if their primary goal is not to help people.

> Another approach might be to take the charity money away from the companies, and have those funds distributed to worthy causes by a democratically appointed body instead: giving the money to causes that benefit everyone, not just the company's PR department. You could call this system 'taxation'.

All of these companies are taxed, according to the rules set by the democratically appointed body you mention. I don't understand why you included this part of your comment.

> This problem could have been fixed years ago (and perhaps should never even have happened), but the people who decide when these big social problems get fixed is no longer the people (almost all of whom think it's an unacceptable travesty, especially in a rich, developed nation), but the billionaire class, who require something back in return.

Just so I have this straight - you're saying the reason that the people of Flint haven't had their water problems fixed yet is because the billionaire class only cares about getting something in return from such an action?

I'd like you to tell me what exactly you think should have been done in Flint and how the billionaire class subverted the will of the American people by not doing it.

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#65

Post by Confiks » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:16 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #50

white-flame wrote: post #26

The "tech giants" are creating and controlling core forms of communication, both interpersonal and broadcast/public. That's too important and fundamental to the health of society to allow it to be arbitrarily engineered, filtered, and slanted for maximizing profit. If they were acting like common carriers, it would be a completely different issue. But they're not; they have business models that necessitate the manipu…

I don't buy this argument. The internet providers are de facto pretty close to the common carrier status (except maybe in cases of huge scale, like Netflix or google, where explicit net neutrality might be desirable). There are no huge technical or financial barriers to entry if you want to build a platform for communication over the internet, nothing comparable to e.g. telecom networks (either in 1950s or now). The…

> Would you like newspapers (e.g. that very NYT) be governmentally regulated because they are "too important for society"? It's dangerously close to the late Soviet Union.

I can agree with the first part of your argument, but you're going overboard here by declaring any form of regulation to be totalitarian in nature. Considerations on the interests of companies versus the interests of society as a whole can be made (and are made) in well-functioning democracies. It's continually difficult to strike a balance, and overzealous mistakes may be made or the process might be corrupted. Still, you can't wholly dismiss governmental regulation as the modern world simply functions on it.

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#66

Post by vorpalhex » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

hexadecimal7e wrote: post #12

The problems with tech companies are not that they are big, but people follow them blindly. These companies only work for making money and are not around to help people. This other day a journalist asked a big computer game producing company why they are selling in-game stuff to kids (like Overwatch). They refused to answer. They are not around to help people. A hospital in Tanzania was in dire need for an upgrade of…

That's what a company does. That is the entire purpose of a company. They don't owe any social good, they are a profit seeking entity.

If you don't agree with a given company, stop giving them profit. Don't like Facebook? Stop using it. Don't care for Microsoft? Stop buying Windows and Office.

The only other option for controlling companies is government control - that has never worked out well longterm.

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#67

Post by dapf73 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:22 PM UTC

white-flame wrote: post #26

The "tech giants" are creating and controlling core forms of communication, both interpersonal and broadcast/public. That's too important and fundamental to the health of society to allow it to be arbitrarily engineered, filtered, and slanted for maximizing profit. If they were acting like common carriers, it would be a completely different issue. But they're not; they have business models that necessitate the manipu…

It's not like they are pointing guns at people, are they?

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#68

Post by ameister14 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

viridian wrote: post #41

paxys wrote: post #17

Corporations have been "too powerful" in this country since its inception. Public policy, culture, politics, style and all other aspects of daily life have all been constantly influenced or outright driven by conglomerates in media, banking, big oil, defense etc. The only difference is that now tech, which had till recently been on the very fringe of this, is starting to upset the established order.

American corporations have only been powerhouses capable of dominating the policy aspect of public life for 95-110 years. I know it seems pedantic, but it's annoying to watch people rewrite history. The industrial revolution weakened the power base of a strong American aristocracy, the majority of which had already been crippled after a brutal civil war. These were the ashes upon which corporate America was built.

America didn't really have an aristocracy. It had something that if left unchecked would probably become an aristocracy, but it didn't exist in that form yet.

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#69

Post by sctb » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #42

Yet more pointless anti-tech drivel. I wish HN had a downvote option for articles (though I know some use the flagging feature for that). The cycle: news domain hosts newsless anti-tech article, people here and elsewhere say "yeah!", site gets clicks, narrative steered as intended, repeat tomorrow. We get it, many here and mass media are against big tech, can we just wait for news or at least unique perspectives befo…

> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. ... If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Have the Tech Giants Grown Too Powerful?

#70

Post by atlantic » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #66

hexadecimal7e wrote: post #12

The problems with tech companies are not that they are big, but people follow them blindly. These companies only work for making money and are not around to help people. This other day a journalist asked a big computer game producing company why they are selling in-game stuff to kids (like Overwatch). They refused to answer. They are not around to help people. A hospital in Tanzania was in dire need for an upgrade of…

That's what a company does. That is the entire purpose of a company. They don't owe any social good, they are a profit seeking entity. If you don't agree with a given company, stop giving them profit. Don't like Facebook? Stop using it. Don't care for Microsoft? Stop buying Windows and Office. The only other option for controlling companies is government control - that has never worked out well longterm.

I'm not sure those are the only two options. Pure capitalism and central control are more like two extremes on a continuum. There is a lot of work being done at the moment to get companies to accept a certain degree of social responsibility for the externalities relating to their activities - things like environmental impact, for instance. So there is an intermediate way forward.