Too Much Power For One Man • Hacker News Board

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#71

Post by unclebucknasty » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 5:55 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #63

[deleted] wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I didn't think my now deleted grandparent comment was inflammatory, but judging from your responses, I see that I've inadvertently angered you.

In any event, this is not constructive. So, I've deleted the grandparent. No harm intended. Take care.

UPDATE: I see that you've edited and deleted some of your posts, removed expletives, etc. So, perhaps you've calmed a bit. Still, while I appreciate you sharing your views, it's probably best to wrap this thread. No further comments from me will be forthcoming. Take care.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#72

Post by restless » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

"Of course this is not a fictional story. The company in question is not Lexcorp, it is Google." Another mission for Captain Obvious

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#73

Post by kabouseng » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

nmrm wrote: post #69

kabouseng wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read Atlas shrugged?

To reiterate, how could enlightened ( individual ) self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)? edit: Pretty sure not eating McDonald's every day is not an affront to capitalism. To assume that critics of McDonald's food are automatically calling for regulation/whatever, instead of just trying to educate people to help them act in their self-interest, is a car…

>>To reiterate, how could enlightened (individual) self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?

Read the book and you'll know...

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#74

Post by Scoundreller » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:07 PM UTC

michaelfeathers wrote: post #21

Scoundreller wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually don't worry too much about them. It's if/when these massive tech companies go bankrupt and monopolistic control crudely goes to the highest bidder (likely some leveraged buyout organization) that I worry about.

This. We've already seen a number of cases where technology that was originally royalty-free or open source becomes encumbered after sale of a company. Theoretically, companies that want to "do good" could put IP and data in a separate trust, but that's kind of like throwing away money you might need when times are tough. I remember people saying "but Sun would never.." before Sun was acquired. Oracle has been a dece…

Indeed Detroit is going through this with their museum's assets, which could be liquidated to pay creditors. Suddenly I understood (part of) why owners of art lend things to museums instead of giving them.

As a further comment to my post, I guess it's safe to say I trust Brin and Page more than I trust control split apart a million ways to a million middle-class people like myself. If someone made the argument that Google could do something evil and I'd only have to work 30 hours per week for the rest of my life instead of 40, I'd be tempted. Brin and Page have no such incentive.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#75

Post by pron » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:13 PM UTC

melloclello wrote: post #70

pron wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concerns expressed in the post have nothing to do with conspiracy, and everything to do with power. Democracies are usually built in such a way as to prevent concentration of power -- not to fight a real or imagined conspiracy. Concentration of power in itself is bad enough even without malevolent intent behind it.

The commenter is arguing the opposite - without concentration of power, you get chaos, which is a bad thing

Which is why democracies have checks and balances, and it is our responsibility to make sure that the power held by private institutions does not grow unchecked. The US made that mistake once, and it took a heroic struggle to wrestle that power away [1].

[1]: http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-Libr...

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#76

Post by ZoFreX » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:29 PM UTC

melloclello wrote: post #70

pron wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concerns expressed in the post have nothing to do with conspiracy, and everything to do with power. Democracies are usually built in such a way as to prevent concentration of power -- not to fight a real or imagined conspiracy. Concentration of power in itself is bad enough even without malevolent intent behind it.

The commenter is arguing the opposite - without concentration of power, you get chaos, which is a bad thing

It doesn't say chaos is a bad thing.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#77

Post by nmrm » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:43 PM UTC

kabouseng wrote: post #73

nmrm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To reiterate, how could enlightened ( individual ) self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)? edit: Pretty sure not eating McDonald's every day is not an affront to capitalism. To assume that critics of McDonald's food are automatically calling for regulation/whatever, instead of just trying to educate people to help them act in their self-interest, is a car…

>>To reiterate, how could enlightened (individual) self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)? Read the book and you'll know...

To the extent that you think objectivism is inconsistent with choosing not to use a product or convincing others not to use a product, I think you've missed the point. In particular, not using Google because you think your privacy is more valuable than the value generated by google's products is pretty exemplary of rational selfishness and individual freedom.

To the extent that you're correct, you're just discrediting Rand as a true private sector authoritarian.

edit: I've read the book.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#78

Post by oldmanjay » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:44 PM UTC

I don't really agree with the premise, which is that drewdavismedia is intelligent enough to decide for other people what they are allowed to have.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#79

Post by Aqueous » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 6:51 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #62

jp555 wrote: post #10

A fitting cartoon analogy for cartoon logic. I am reminded of an Alan Moore quote: “In the mid 1980's I was asked by an american legal institution known as the Christic Legal Institute to compile a comic book that would detail the murky history of the C.I.A., from the end of the second world war, to the present day. Covering such things as the heroin smuggling during the Vietnam war, the cocaine smuggling during the…

The concerns expressed in the post have nothing to do with conspiracy, and everything to do with power. Democracies are usually built in such a way as to prevent concentration of power -- not to fight a real or imagined conspiracy. Concentration of power in itself is bad enough even without malevolent intent behind it.

I think the point is that even when individuals accrue large amounts of power, like Page/Brin, Zuckerberg, the Kochs, the Bushes, or the Clintons, that it is never really all that concentrated, because there are still thousands and millions of competing interests to consider.

Power flows from many different places. At least for the past couple of centuries, it is never so concentrated that a single individual can orchestrate the world without repercussions.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#80

Post by cliveowen » Sun, Jul 13, 2014, 7:02 PM UTC

Aqueous wrote: post #79

pron wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concerns expressed in the post have nothing to do with conspiracy, and everything to do with power. Democracies are usually built in such a way as to prevent concentration of power -- not to fight a real or imagined conspiracy. Concentration of power in itself is bad enough even without malevolent intent behind it.

I think the point is that even when individuals accrue large amounts of power, like Page/Brin, Zuckerberg, the Kochs, the Bushes, or the Clintons, that it is never really all that concentrated, because there are still thousands and millions of competing interests to consider. Power flows from many different places. At least for the past couple of centuries, it is never so concentrated that a single individual can orc…

Not only that, the article makes it sound like Larry Page set out to conquer the world and decided to start from a search engine. The reality is far from that, there is no master plan to capture the personal information of everyone, just the need to provide useful services and an incredible business acumen on the part of the management that consistently acquire winning teams and companies over the years.