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

The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

rankscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 399 posts

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#101

Post by dnautics »

auganov wrote: post #29

I love how few actual proposal there are out there as to what the government should actually do. That is - not just "regulate" or "break them up". I'm talking specifics. Once you start making concrete proposals it becomes increasingly obvious just how hard it is to come up with something that won't make everything worse.

Theres also very little discussion about what the fundamental principles are behind what, when, how much, and why government should regulate beyond "it's good for society" or, worse "it's good for the economy". There's a lot of really bad things you can do under the color of that reasoning and it would be nice to have a series of easy-to-understand concrete litmus tests, or at the very least an enumerated list.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#102

Post by [deleted] »

chrisco255 wrote: post #95
shadowgovt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is 100% nothing stopping the Federal government from offering a full-faith-and-credit-backed "America electronic transaction system" for electronic transactions, with those fees handled by taxes. But much as there's nothing stopping the Federal government from greatly simplifying the burden and toil of tax season by issuing 90% of Americans a pre-filled-out "This is what you owe; sign this and return it or disp…

Right, the same government that couldn't get a healthcare website going is supposed to also power every single transaction from internal infrastructure. There are hidden costs that are much higher than 3% to giving the government full control over every transaction in society. It's a single point of failure with no redundancy or decentralization, a large attack vector, and a human rights nightmare. As a general rule,…

[deleted]

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#103

Post by stickfigure »

tgb wrote: post #70
MattGaiser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or all the impacts down the line. If they decided to basically seize Google, they would be telling investors that long term investment doesn’t work as the government will come along and ruin it. Watch as companies like Google rapidly stop any innovation spending and become high dividend stocks built only to pump out cash.

Hasn't this already happened with Bell and Bell Labs? Why didn't the breakup of Bell stop Google from investing in innovation?

Bell was a real monopoly - as in, it was literally illegal to start a competing phone company. This is much different from "monopoly" with quotes, as in "gee whiz they seem so big and popular it must be a monopoly".

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#104

Post by topicseed »

pb7 wrote: post #78
kevmo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a digital protection racket.

Is this any different from putting up a billboard next to a restaurant for a competing restaurant?

It is, because it is not always perceived as an Ad. Looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and Google has it #1, so it must be my duck.

So in principle, you're right, but in my opinion, it's a lot more powerful than a billboard (clear ad) next to a real storefront.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#105

Post by splintercell »

tgb wrote: post #70
MattGaiser wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or all the impacts down the line. If they decided to basically seize Google, they would be telling investors that long term investment doesn’t work as the government will come along and ruin it. Watch as companies like Google rapidly stop any innovation spending and become high dividend stocks built only to pump out cash.

Hasn't this already happened with Bell and Bell Labs? Why didn't the breakup of Bell stop Google from investing in innovation?

Maybe because of Microsoft being able to make all its problems go away after they started actively participating in DC. Google hopes to do the same.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#106

Post by elicash »

chrisco255 wrote: post #95
shadowgovt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is 100% nothing stopping the Federal government from offering a full-faith-and-credit-backed "America electronic transaction system" for electronic transactions, with those fees handled by taxes. But much as there's nothing stopping the Federal government from greatly simplifying the burden and toil of tax season by issuing 90% of Americans a pre-filled-out "This is what you owe; sign this and return it or disp…

Right, the same government that couldn't get a healthcare website going is supposed to also power every single transaction from internal infrastructure. There are hidden costs that are much higher than 3% to giving the government full control over every transaction in society. It's a single point of failure with no redundancy or decentralization, a large attack vector, and a human rights nightmare. As a general rule,…

I mean, government does GPS. Sends folks to space. You mention SpaceX, but let's not pretend NASA doesn't exist. Yeah, there was once that website that had a bad launch, but there's nothing inherent in government that wouldn't allow this to work well.

I do think ideally this could be done by NY or CA first. We should test out ideas in the states, where possible.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#107

Post by Aunche »

shadowgovt wrote: post #82
Aunche wrote: post #22

Both conservatives and liberals are convinced that Google is rigged against them. I don’t trust American lawmakers not to shove their ideologies into a search engine.

If anything, perhaps agreement from these two segments of government indicates that Google is serving public interest as a viable counterweight to the force of government itself?

They don't agree. The left uses Steven Crowder not being banned from Youtube as an example of conservative bias. The right claims Steven Crowder being demonetized is evidence of liberal bias. Right now Google has a profit motive to remain neutral. The fewer people they alienate, the more money they make. It's not perfect, but politicians have very little incentive to keep Google neutral.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#108

Post by ATsch »

tempsy wrote: post #18

I would argue Visa and Mastercard and payment processing at large as the top priority by far. It's crazy that we've given up control as a society of the only mechanisms for electronic payments in an increasingly cashless world to unregulated private entities who continue to jack up fees as often as they can get away with. Makes everything 3-5% more expensive. Ridiculous.

The big problem with the Visa/MC duopoly isn't the lack of regulation or enforcement of antitrust. It's that the US government, unlike many other countries on earth, does not provide adequate and free payment services to citizens itself.

Re: The case for why Google should be regulated as a public utility

#109

Post by tgb »

stickfigure wrote: post #103
tgb wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't this already happened with Bell and Bell Labs? Why didn't the breakup of Bell stop Google from investing in innovation?

Bell was a real monopoly - as in, it was literally illegal to start a competing phone company. This is much different from "monopoly" with quotes, as in "gee whiz they seem so big and popular it must be a monopoly ".

I don't see the relevance here. Google knows that both sense of "monopoly" can and have been regulated by the government since Standard Oil was broken up. Hence the threat of regulation did not stop Google from investing in innovation.
Post reply on HN