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

84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#101

Post by Arnt »

seydor wrote: post #100
Arnt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A campaign to stop drilling would need to answer questions about the likely effect, not just about the intention. Since OPEC has cut production many times in the past 50 years, and generally other producers have increased their production to fill the void, what do you think the likely effect would be?

It doesn't matter because in virtue-politics like the OP post, consequences don't really matter . That's e.g. how germany found itself stuck in a pipeline-shaped hole. It may be that norwegians are not as moral as they are portrayed often (e.g. https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/is-norway-the-new-east-indi... ). In any case, i used the Fund to make a hypothetical argument that doesn't need to match with reality.

Oh, Norwegians are quite moral. I think you're making the mistake of considering intention-driven behaviour to be somehow moral and effect-driven behaviour not.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#102

Post by marcosdumay »

glitchc wrote: post #86
marcosdumay wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's clearly a "corporations are holy" kind of argument, where it's implicit that if one breaks down the oligopoly that is oppressing the market and disallowing innovation, the entire economy will go down, since the oligopoly is the entire economy. But I don't think the OP noticed that.

This is not a personal belief, merely an observation. Given past and present behaviour of the US govt., it's apparent that corporations receive a rather light touch. By comparison, the govt is much harsher with individuals guilty of the same behaviour. This is perhaps not just economic but also strategic: The corporations are often brand ambassadors of the "American Way Of Life" at a global scale. It's soft power.

It's some weird system. The corporations pay powerful people to say people need them, otherwise there wouldn't be jobs; then the people listen and believe. All while those powerful people have an excuse for accepting money and protecting the corporations.

Anyway, if you think Google or Facebook are good "brands" for the US, you've got way too much exposition. The Hollywood propaganda works great, that big-co one doesn't.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#103

Post by gengwyn »

soco wrote: post #21
glitchc wrote: post #7

The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.

Is this a trickle-down style of argument? Or that corporations are holy? Or that they always have the job takers interests at heart? Or that the elected representatives are elected by the 16% who don't want stronger privacy laws? I'm confused.

It's none of those. It's a representative considering the interests of multiple stakeholders and acknowledging the deleterious effects that well-intentioned legislation can have. If these issues were black and white, the solutions would be easy.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#104

Post by treyd »

zooq_ai wrote: post #16
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy has minimal overall economic impact because of the zero sum nature of advertising. Specific companies get harmed, but advertisers don’t suddenly have less money if advertising is less targeted. Net result that money is simply going to support different jobs. Similarly with more/less efficient advertising consumers have just as much money so total spending stays the same, so the only change is which companies…

This is clueless understanding of economics (and very prevalent in HN) Economics 101 : There is no fixed pie of $$$$. $$ (as in wealth, productivity) can absolutely disappear from the economy or grow from nothing.

In advertising it can often be true in a sense though. A very illustrative example of this when regulations tightening advertising for cigarettes were introduced, cigarette companies started reporting more profits because they all collectively stopped advertising at the same time and got to pocket the money they would have spent on it. The pool of cigarette smokers isn't/wasn't growing that much, so all the advertising was really doing was trying to take consumers away from their competitors and the net effect was 0.

To be fair, then they started investing in vape companies and things might have changed. I don't think that's a good thing, although vapes are probably less harmful than cigarettes.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#105

Post by jemmyw »

benterix wrote: post #55
eru wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you are trying to say, but I'm not quite sure why Norway's sovereign fund would collapse just because the Norwegians would stop adding more money to the fund? And why would the companies they invest in collapse? The companies in the S&P500 don't collapse, when I stop making regular new payments into my retirement fund.

I noticed this post was downvoted. Could anyone explain why? The fund is enormous so the question is pertinent.

Because the question didn't make sense. The fund wouldn't collapse if they stop adding oil funds to it, it will continue to exist as an investment. That's actually the point of it, to continue once the oil is gone.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#106

Post by glitchc »

marcosdumay wrote: post #102
glitchc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a personal belief, merely an observation. Given past and present behaviour of the US govt., it's apparent that corporations receive a rather light touch. By comparison, the govt is much harsher with individuals guilty of the same behaviour. This is perhaps not just economic but also strategic: The corporations are often brand ambassadors of the "American Way Of Life" at a global scale. It's soft power.

It's some weird system. The corporations pay powerful people to say people need them, otherwise there wouldn't be jobs; then the people listen and believe. All while those powerful people have an excuse for accepting money and protecting the corporations. Anyway, if you think Google or Facebook are good "brands" for the US, you've got way too much exposition. The Hollywood propaganda works great, that big-co one does…

A brand's worth is based on how many people know about it. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Disney, Tesla, etc. etc. are some of the most well-known brands on the planet. Globally, they consistently rank at or near the top. You don't have to take my word for it [1]. Step outside your bubble and do your own research :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_valuable_brands

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#107

Post by glitchc »

Retric wrote: post #19
zooq_ai wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is clueless understanding of economics (and very prevalent in HN) Economics 101 : There is no fixed pie of $$$$. $$ (as in wealth, productivity) can absolutely disappear from the economy or grow from nothing.

The economy grows or shrinks with productivity but advertising specifically is zero sum. Coke vs Pepsi makes a great deal of difference to those specific companies and little else. If anything it’s slightly negative due to inefficiency because the winner isn’t the best product.

Advertising is not zero-sum. It is a money multiplier.

To illustrate this, we start from the position that a new business creates net new value in the economy (on top of existing value). This is an economic maxim that must be true otherwise our GDP would never grow from 1770 standards.

Now, the new business has to allocate a percentage of its budget to advertising. It doesn't have a choice in the matter:

1) In a competitive market, not advertising places it at a competitive disadvantage to its rivals who are advertising.

2) In a non-competitive market, not advertising leads to a smaller overall market and a weaker position (loss of market cap and easier to disrupt).

Once the new business start advertising, other businesses become aware of it and either (a) choose to enter the market themselves, or (b) invest in advertising targeted at blocking/reducing this new market. Both cases result in more money spent on advertising. That's the multiplier effect.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#108

Post by Retric »

glitchc wrote: post #107
Retric wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economy grows or shrinks with productivity but advertising specifically is zero sum. Coke vs Pepsi makes a great deal of difference to those specific companies and little else. If anything it’s slightly negative due to inefficiency because the winner isn’t the best product.

Advertising is not zero-sum. It is a money multiplier. To illustrate this, we start from the position that a new business creates net new value in the economy (on top of existing value). This is an economic maxim that must be true otherwise our GDP would never grow from 1770 standards. Now, the new business has to allocate a percentage of its budget to advertising. It doesn't have a choice in the matter: 1) In a comp…

> Advertising is not zero-sum. It is a money multiplier.

You misunderstand zero sum here. Gas stations can’t grow total gas sales making the selling of gas zero sum, but they very much provide a useful function in aggregate.

Advertising is going to exist with and without tracking individual users, the difference is simply relative value of undifferentiated content. Selling camping supplies on an outdoor website is targeting, but linking user’s history allows anyone to get a cut of premium revenue even if it’s lowest common denominator crap. But remove tracking of users and specialty content like local news becomes a lot more valuable and clickbait far less, a major public good.

> we start from the position that a new business creates net new value in the economy (on top of existing value). This is an economic maxim that must be true otherwise our GDP would never grow from 1770 standards.

I understand the point you are trying to make but existing companies also evolve their offerings over time. Nintendo in 1889 wasn’t selling video games.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#109

Post by marcosdumay »

glitchc wrote: post #106
marcosdumay wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's some weird system. The corporations pay powerful people to say people need them, otherwise there wouldn't be jobs; then the people listen and believe. All while those powerful people have an excuse for accepting money and protecting the corporations. Anyway, if you think Google or Facebook are good "brands" for the US, you've got way too much exposition. The Hollywood propaganda works great, that big-co one does…

A brand's worth is based on how many people know about it. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Disney, Tesla, etc. etc. are some of the most well-known brands on the planet. Globally, they consistently rank at or near the top. You don't have to take my word for it [1]. Step outside your bubble and do your own research :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_valuable_brands

> A brand's worth is based on how many people know about it.

If that was true, people would be constantly trying to impersonate famous recent criminals you find on the news.

Re: 84% want stronger online privacy laws, but Congress's corruption stalls progress

#110

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

glitchc wrote: post #7

The real truth is that strong privacy laws would cause economic harm to flagship corporations. That would have a ripple effect on the economy as those corporations are responsible for thousands of high-paying jobs. The elected representatives know that people care more about the economy (specifically what's in their wallets) than about privacy.

"flagship corporations"

If there are corporations that are the world's largest by headcount or by capitalisation, i.e., "flagship" corporations, and these entities are dependent on online surveillance and online ad sales to operate in their present capacity, then certainly privacy regulation is likely going to affect them. One could argue such regulation is targeting them, i.e., the harm they do, specifically.

As a result of regulation these entities might no longer be able to maintain their position as "flagship" corporations. Other corporations that are not dependant on surveillance and ad sales for 90+% of their revenue may again become the "flagship" corporations, as they were prior to the 2010s.

The current online surveillance and online ad sales-based "flagship" coporations have only held their "flagship" positions for a relatively short time period. Arguably, the general absence of regulation governing their privacy-violating behaviour, which remarkably is the core of their "business model", has provided a competitive advantage vis-a-vis other corporations in more regulated industries. One could argue privacy regulation might effectively level the playing field.

Post reply on HN