Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee • Hacker News Board

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#21

Post by retsibsi » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

mindgam3 wrote: post #9

majormajor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was that? Large sections of the article are about his being anti-Zuck (by name). (In, granted, a PR-happy way - book, tour... but still.)

April 2019. See link below for context. To your point: being anti-Zuck in public is a transparent ploy for attention if you're not anti-Zuck in private. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/roger-mcnamee-facebook...

What do you mean by 'in private' here? The criticism in your other comment seems to be based on things that he said at a public or at least semi-public event.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#22

Post by greendream17 » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:09 AM UTC

The director of the Manhattan Project Robert Oppenheimer went on a public speaking tour to apologising for his part in creating the atomic bom. It was Von Neumann who cynically remarked that: One cannot apologise for something without also first claiming it as one's own accomplishment.

Wether is the atomic bom or Facebook, I am sure they would have existed without their conscientious defectors. There is something much stronger at play, be it nuclear fusion in physics or information asymmetry in economics.

I share in the concern of McNamee and Oppenheimer, but Technological Humanism often leaves us with impossible technology and bad business.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#23

Post by harry8 » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:13 AM UTC

harikb wrote: post #18

harry8 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebrick adjusting their algos to promote say, anti-Warren content. How would we know? It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and i…

> Then there's the obscenely large amounts spent by big tech on lobbying in washington and PR in the media and in places like right here. Any data here? I would have thought compared to other industries, tech hasn’t spend nearly enough! Few people occasionally tweet our Google or Facebook having donated $2700 to one republican superpact or another. This has to be peanuts compared to any real money involved.

first hit for the first search string that came to mind "facebook lobbying spend"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/facebook-and-amazon-lead-tec...

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#24

Post by harry8 » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:14 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #14

harry8 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebrick adjusting their algos to promote say, anti-Warren content. How would we know? It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and i…

> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and it's a quite esoteric argument as to why it would make things worse (maybe a true, valid and legitimate argument, - but not the sort of thing that takes on support organically without a bit of push - can we see that push?). I think the reas…

I have very strong doubts about that as an explanation.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#25

Post by lggdn » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

> I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year.

If a Dem wins, the media/etc will praise tech/social media like they did after Obama won. Remember in 2008 when the media hailed Obama as the first "social media president". It's amazing how a single election shifted the narrative on an entire industry wholesale. It's like someone flipped a switch and the narrative went from positive to negative overnight.

How many remember Obama's Q&A at google?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nnj7r1wCD4

What would have been the narrative had Hillary won? Would tech be credited with helping her win rather than attacked relentlessly by the media? The real question that isn't why the news industry was so upset? Isn't the news supposed to be objective and fair?

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#26

Post by mc32 » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:17 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #14

harry8 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebrick adjusting their algos to promote say, anti-Warren content. How would we know? It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and i…

> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and it's a quite esoteric argument as to why it would make things worse (maybe a true, valid and legitimate argument, - but not the sort of thing that takes on support organically without a bit of push - can we see that push?). I think the reas…

She’s too much of an ideologue —a bit like Bernie. It’s their way or the highway. So even if Joe is weaker as a candidate he’d be nominated over Warren and Sanders by the party, the people (primary voters) might go with an ideologue.

That said, Tulsi is right, most of the party are a bunch of neocons (aside from Sanders and maybe Warren).

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#27

Post by kortilla » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:20 AM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #12

firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebrick adjusting their algos to promote say, anti-Warren content. How would we know? It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and i…

> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care

Maybe for liberals, but a lot of people on the right don’t care much for government intervention in industries without a compelling reason.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#28

Post by mindslight » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:22 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #19

firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

I think you’d want it to be your own party that gets to start regulating political speech. Advocating for censorship while the opposition is in charge is a phenomenal amount of trust, to say the least.

It will be - by the time the censorship is actually being implemented, the red team will be out and the blue team will have the reigns.

Generally the foundation of political support builds as sensible opposition while the other team is in power. Then that opposition team gets elected, and its politicians go to work "compromising" with the gatekeeping lobbyists - neutering any hard hitting reforms and transmuting that grassroots desire for reform into regulatory capture.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#29

Post by harry8 » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #27

harry8 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebrick adjusting their algos to promote say, anti-Warren content. How would we know? It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and i…

> It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care Maybe for liberals, but a lot of people on the right don’t care much for government intervention in industries without a compelling reason.

I am on the right. Those on the right aren't changing their views on Warren because she discusses big tech. Really they aren't suddenly decicding they don't like her anymore.

Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost curve and has network externalities. (Hence why there aren't 27 similar magnitude businesses competiung in the facebook space, for example).

Indeed even if you have no facebook account and have taken your business elsewhere they have a shadow profile of you from your firends and from web trackers and so on. Google have your mail and analyze it even if you run your own server and have no google account. The list goes on from there. The case for regulation is overwhelming, what many of those of us of a libertarian bent want is /sensible/ regulation rather than the idiotic variety that is so prevalent. There aren't many on the right who think you should be able to poison the water or, switch off the taps and increase prices by a factor of 100. There aren't many on the right who think national defence payment should be "opt in"

Anyway these are also esoteric arguments just as their counterarguments are and unlikely to get a groundswell of support either way without a splashy push. The election of Donald Trump was that push for a large number of people on all sides of politics. The counter to that push? Where is that?

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#30

Post by firasd » Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 3:48 AM UTC

larnmar wrote: post #13

firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

Cynically we could say that the current news cycle is about putting pressure on big tech companies to try to rig the next election in favour of a Democrat. Even more cynically we could say that an awful lot of people at an awful lot of tech companies want to do exactly that, and “responding to pressure” just gives them a perfect excuse.

Yes. I think a lot of liberal activism regarding Facebook is an attempt at 'working the refs'. The other side does it too -- before FB shut down the 'trending topics' section, there were many allegations of anti-conservative bias.