Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument is always repeated within the first ten minutes of these discussions, but I don't really understand why anyone assumes that competition is somehow the panacea to every problem on the planet. I don't want ten unregulated facebooks who all leak my data, I want one facebook that plays by reasonable rules. The dynamics of social networks which don't deliver value if they're fragmented has made the competiti…
This oversimplified "regulation is bad" idea is pushed by a lot of think tanks (e.g. CATO, americans for prosperity, freedomworks, heritage foundation) set up by the Koch brothers. They have close links with the media, which is why these weirdly specific views get parroted a lot. If you've ever read a story about the evils of hairdresser licensing (for instance), it's from them. They have been on a crusade against re…
Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
51–60 of 240 posts
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#52The evil engineers! Not the managers, CEOs and so on, but engineers. The true root of evil.
Finally someone recognizes who's really at fault
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#53Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#54Once upon a time public opinion was manipulated by TV and the big newspapers; now it is manipulated by new media companies. My stupid question is: where is the big difference?
The people who used to be able to manipulate public opinion are really, really pissed off that others are doing it and they’re even more pissed off that manipulating public opinion has become more difficult and people who aren’t respectable members of the elite are being listened to by the public. Before the internet Sanders, Trump, AOC, Yang, they would never have gotten anywhere. The ruling class is pissed off that…
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#55Warning. Regulation almost always favors incumbents.
This argument is always repeated within the first ten minutes of these discussions, but I don't really understand why anyone assumes that competition is somehow the panacea to every problem on the planet. I don't want ten unregulated facebooks who all leak my data, I want one facebook that plays by reasonable rules. The dynamics of social networks which don't deliver value if they're fragmented has made the competiti…
As a hint, when a large company asks for some regulation, it is very likely that it is of the kind that brings all those problems.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#56It sounds like he wants to require tech companies to ban speech that the US is constitutionally forbidden from banning itself.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#57Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#58Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
This oversimplified "regulation is bad" idea is pushed by a lot of think tanks (e.g. CATO, americans for prosperity, freedomworks, heritage foundation) set up by the Koch brothers. They have close links with the media, which is why these weirdly specific views get parroted a lot. If you've ever read a story about the evils of hairdresser licensing (for instance), it's from them. They have been on a crusade against re…
You make it seem like some weird fringe view funded by a handful of people. To the contrary, it’s been the dominant mode of public policy since the 1980s across the whole western world. Reagan, Clinton, Thatcher, Howard, Harper, etc. Even Trudeau and Macron, who are ostensibly left-leaning, are doubling down on privatization and deregulation: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2016/nov/... ; https://f…
They absolutely are not. They're capitalists, neoliberals, in all senses. There are no left wing economic policies being created anywhere in the western world right now.
Re: Microsoft President: Democracy Is At Stake. Regulate Big Tech
#60The threats to democracy arguments are so overblown. We're about to have a huge election. There is no literal threat to democracy. Hmmm...it must be some kind of metaphor. So what do people mean when they say this? The NPR piece says Smith suggests "the Internet giants will cannibalize the very fabric of this country". This metaphor seems hyperbolic as well. To use "cannibalize" means that something will eat itself.…
What would you consider a threat to democracy?