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

United States vs. Google

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#171

Post by mdoms »

thayne wrote: post #117
rland wrote: post #109

> there is a strain of political thought in America, independent of political party (although traditionally associated with Democrats), that is inherently allergic to concentrated power — monopoly in the populist sense, if not the legal one. > Hatred of monopoly is one of the oldest American political habits and like most profound traditions In what country does the author live? Americans are so used to concentrated…

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.

> I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it.

BS. Americans will happily send half their disposable income to Amazon in the name of convenience.

Re: United States vs. Google

#172

Post by dcow »

dudul wrote: post #152
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy only works well with an informed and educated populace and we have been defunding education for a decade. Add in the power of lobbyists and the newfound power of tech giants to inflict misery on humanity and you get the current “corporate rule” we are experiencing. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishi...

I see this argument mentioned often, but what would really change with a well informed and educated population? They would still need to elect representatives from 2 different parties. Representatives who would still operate in the current framework. We would still see lobbies, bad short term policies implemented to be reelected, etc.

Support voting reform in an effort to weaken the grasp our first pst the post system retains on our politics?

Re: United States vs. Google

#173

Post by munk-a »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #155
munk-a wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO democracy isn't working in the US since the political parties were whittled down to just two actors and they realized they can just fight over social issues and have nearly identical stances on economic issues. This is one of the reasons I've been advocating hard to keep IRV in my local district (Chittenden County VT) and why I'm so happy to see Democrats, Republicans and Progressives all competing in the electio…

The rhetoric of electoralism and the idea that votes for a third party are "thrown away" is intensely corrosive to representative democracy. I agree that ranked-preference voting looks like the best fix for our current hyper-stable two-party system, but it's going to be an incredible uphill battle to expand this style of voting.

Absolutely - mostly because it's in the interest of the establishment of both parties to keep the two party system.

That's why I like advocating for it in local elections - it leads to a more wide awareness of the advantages of the system in the minds of electorates.

Re: United States vs. Google

#174

Post by jhawk28 »

munk-a wrote: post #162
bastardoperator wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't bat an eye? Healthcare has been the largest debate in this country for the last 8 years.

Yea - but the majority of Americans want a policy like what Sanders was offering (Medicare for All) and neither major political party is on board with it - that's sort of par for the course of how US policy decisions look like - generally the US has gone with policies that don't actually gain majority support instead favoring the will of special interest groups.

Why do you think the majority of Americans want Sanders' policy? If neither major party are onboard with medicare for all, then that would be a strong indication that the majority of Americans do NOT want what he is offering.

Re: United States vs. Google

#175

Post by ralfd »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #54
aikinai wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't take a time traveller to tell you what is going to happen once it reaches a particular point. Just like it didn’t take a time traveler to know that Kodak, Microsoft, and Sears would grow to be unstoppable?

Microsoft was the subject of an antitrust proceeding, and is currently the largest US company by market capitalization. Kodak (film photography) and Sears (mail order catalogs) failed because the markets they had dominated effectively ceased to exist, not because anybody unseated them in those markets.

> and is currently the largest US company by market capitalization

Nitpicking: Apple has that crown

Re: United States vs. Google

#176

Post by arcticbull »

sudosysgen wrote: post #150
munk-a wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO democracy isn't working in the US since the political parties were whittled down to just two actors and they realized they can just fight over social issues and have nearly identical stances on economic issues. This is one of the reasons I've been advocating hard to keep IRV in my local district (Chittenden County VT) and why I'm so happy to see Democrats, Republicans and Progressives all competing in the electio…

Actually yes, this is a good point, a large part of it can be attributed to the FPTP system enforcing two parties that can endlessly justify themselves by being marginally better on some issues (in this case, social issues). Do you see a possible path for something like IRV nationwide?

FPTP doesn’t enforce two parties. Canada uses FPTP and has 5 major parties (Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc Québécois and Greens) that end up with seats. One of the first two ends up in power for the most part but minority governments often lead to de facto coalitions, the way the NDP is currently propping up the Liberal minority while the conservatives form the official opposition.

I would love to see IRV in both places though as it would be nice to see something other than a Liberal or Conservative PM. Near miss with the NDP a few years back.

Re: United States vs. Google

#177

Post by [deleted] »

dcow wrote: post #172
dudul wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this argument mentioned often, but what would really change with a well informed and educated population? They would still need to elect representatives from 2 different parties. Representatives who would still operate in the current framework. We would still see lobbies, bad short term policies implemented to be reelected, etc.

Support voting reform in an effort to weaken the grasp our first pst the post system retains on our politics?

[deleted]

Re: United States vs. Google

#178

Post by smnrchrds »

wwwdonohue wrote: post #75
dsabanin wrote: post #47

I think Google is the best search engine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them being the best search engine, top online ad platform and a developer of the top mobile OS, top video streaming service, top internet browser, top mapping/navigation service, among other things, at the SAME time. Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening onli…

I sort of agree, but part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them! They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it. It's different if a company like Google establishes its dominance via one great product…

> part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them!

We don't know if they make the best services. Perhaps there would be much better mobile OS or search engines made by others, if it were not for Google's dominant position discouraging new entrants or crushing them in their infancy.

Re: United States vs. Google

#179

Post by computerphage »

mdoms wrote: post #171
thayne wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.

> I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. BS. Americans will happily send half their disposable income to Amazon in the name of convenience.

Ah yes, because if I alone don't pay Amazon any money, they'll go bankrupt any day now.

There is such a thing as coordination, and it's not always easy.

Re: United States vs. Google

#180

Post by tehjoker »

mdoms wrote: post #171
thayne wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. We may have the right to vote, but we don't have options to vote for anyone that is incentivized to change the status quo.

> I think most Americans are unhappy with this situation. But we feel powerless to change it. BS. Americans will happily send half their disposable income to Amazon in the name of convenience.

This is just blaming individual consumers for the fact that there is concentrated power that benefits from minor choices people make in mass, the kinds of choices that are easily manipulable by adding or removing friction to various choices.

We don't have strong enough democratic social and labor movements that can move the needle yet. If we abandon the individualistic frame, we begin to see the necessity of joining political groups and regularly discussing our problems and how we can try to solve them, sometimes by coordinating with coalitions of groups to increase power.

Post reply on HN