I think we should start small, from, say, nationalizing the authors' personal possessions and primary residence.
We're coming for your toothbrush, 0xbear.
We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
191–200 of 237 posts
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#192What would happen to those companies if nationalized? I'm pretty sure most googlers et Al don't want to be government employees and would quit immediately.
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#193I think a lot of the "oh my gosh nationalisation is such an awful idea" / "not in my free society" comments are missing the point. I too believe nationalisation is a bad idea in this case , but given the enormous reaction it would bring, can you imagine how awful the situation appears to be from the authors (any many other non-tech-bubble) peoples perspective to even contemplate such a thing? Let alone write an opini…
> I think a lot of the "oh my gosh nationalisation is such an awful idea" / "not in my free society" comments are missing the point. They really aren't. Far larger, more entrenched monopolies have existed before; when they needed to be resolved, they were simply broken up. Suggesting to nationalize them is not only entirely unnecessary, it contradicts decades of experience in dealing with monopolies. IMHO, nationaliz…
I think they need to be forced to integrate with open standards and open contracts.
1. identity management
2. data storage & privacy individual, group, and public level.
3. Data graphs
4. open standards for apis with an api broker
5.
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simple solution is to treat these companies as telcos. We could learn something from history. See e.g. the Mann-Elkins Act (1910), [1]. And the telecommunications acts, [2], [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann%E2%80%93Elkins_Act [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
What we should learn from history is that ICC regulation was crippling (nearly destroying the rail industry in the US: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-nation-der... ) and the county has been a lot better off since railroads, air freight, airlines, and yes telcos were deregulated. That is not to say that we can't regulate things we care about (data privacy, competition, etc). But looking with rose-co…
Definitely no bias in the take you linked...
Whatever you wanna say about how regulation worked out for trains in the US, the situation in the early era of US rail was not a good one. It was one of the worst monopolies we've seen and was terrible for the workers.
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we should learn from history is that ICC regulation was crippling (nearly destroying the rail industry in the US: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-nation-der... ) and the county has been a lot better off since railroads, air freight, airlines, and yes telcos were deregulated. That is not to say that we can't regulate things we care about (data privacy, competition, etc). But looking with rose-co…
Definitely no bias in the take you linked... Whatever you wanna say about how regulation worked out for trains in the US, the situation in the early era of US rail was not a good one. It was one of the worst monopolies we've seen and was terrible for the workers.
What bias? As far as I can tell, the author has no connection to the rail industry.[1] As to your other point, the fact that early rail monopolies were bad doesn't mean that ICC-style regulation was good. You can have labor protections, antitrust enforcement, and safety regulations without having the government be involved in deciding how much a trip from Chicago to Milwaukee should cost. There is a reason there was a bipartisan effort to get rid of those regulatory regimes in the 1960s-1990s, and why Europe copied those reforms in the 1980s-2000s.
[1] If you're referring to the fact that the article appears in the American Conservative, merely being conservative is not a "bias." In any event, left-leaning organizations like the Brookings Institute have featured similar coverage: https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-success-of-the-stagge....
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's not a clear boundary, but it's basically the same as when electric power turned from something-only-a-few-rich-could-afford to a utility. At some point, electric power was important enough that it was deemed necessary to impose tight regulation that ensures its availability under fair prices to all citizens (which is what being a utility means to me).
That analogy makes sense. So the discussion should be around what makes Facebook as important as e.g. electric power. Personally, I think Facebook is more like a lottery or a tabloid than it is like electric power. Citizens are fine, nay, better off without it. Most arguments e.g. ITT fail to convince me on the critical-ness of Facebook/Google. Instead, the possible harm they cause is brought forward. That's a seriou…
Google is undeniably important to people. And mainly because they've squeezed themselves into every part of our online lives. Facebook is less so, though it has become a platform that many businesses rely on.
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely no bias in the take you linked... Whatever you wanna say about how regulation worked out for trains in the US, the situation in the early era of US rail was not a good one. It was one of the worst monopolies we've seen and was terrible for the workers.
What bias? As far as I can tell, the author has no connection to the rail industry.[1] As to your other point, the fact that early rail monopolies were bad doesn't mean that ICC-style regulation was good. You can have labor protections, antitrust enforcement, and safety regulations without having the government be involved in deciding how much a trip from Chicago to Milwaukee should cost. There is a reason there was…
I wouldn't call Brookings left-leaning. Centre-right or better neoliberal.
I agree with your points though, the rail situation in the US is awful. Good regulation is hard to do, especially in a place where regulators typically do not share the interests of the people they are in the service of.
I don't think Europe copying the reforms you mention is necessarily a good endorsement of them. The rail situation in (at least Western) Europe has also become quite bad.
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be saying there's a high threshold for extreme opinions to be published in the Guardian, so the fact that someone wrote such an article suggests that there is a genuine problem that needs to be taken seriously. Guardian writers do not live inside a "bubble" and therefore, there is inherent merit to what they write. I wonder how often you actually read the Guardian, which is famous for having wildly extrem…
> It's basically the Breitbart of the left Please. The Guardian is establishment liberal media. The opinions they publish aren't even that extreme. There are plenty of journals that are far more radical and much further to the left. It's funny how conservative HN looks when posts like this appear.
The opinions they publish are fantastically extreme and often deeply offensive. The Guardian constantly pumps out honest to god racism, sexism and other deplorable viewpoints. The only reason you don't believe it's comparable to Breitbart is you haven't sat down and done an honest comparison.
My post simply lists out Guardian headlines for all to see. It originally had something like +15 points and now it's sitting at zero, apparently it touched a nerve with some people who can't stand the idea that the Guardian and Breitbart might be comparable.
Here are some more headlines from their opinion writers, just to disabuse anyone of the notion that the Guardian is somehow not a bastion of radical extremism. They hate white people, they hate democracy, they hate men, they hate voters, they hate tea and Thomas the Tank Engine. They make money out of peddling hatred.
"The budget should be less macho - how about it boys"
"Why do women lie more than men? Because we're nicer"
"The Whiteness Project will make you wince. Because white people can be rather awful"
"Sexists are scared of Mad Max because it's a call to dismantle patriarchies"
"Are you too white, rich, able-bodied and straight to be a feminist"
"Tea is a national disgrace: Britain's favourite beverage is a boring relic of our colonial past."
"The tyrannical world of Thomas the Tank Engine. Kids love this little dipstick of an engine ... but what a chilling isle Sodor is."
"What if men had periods? It's a question worth posing"
"Democracy is a religion that has failed the poor"
"The country is screwed, the electorate is evil, but here are nine reasons to be cheerful"
"The week in patriarchy: take a moment to step away for survival"
"Did you weep watching Wonder Woman? You weren't alone"
"Remember when men and women could be friends? Republicans don't"
"Why the mediocre male's days may be numbered"
etc etc.
Re: We Need to Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon
#199I think a lot of the "oh my gosh nationalisation is such an awful idea" / "not in my free society" comments are missing the point. I too believe nationalisation is a bad idea in this case , but given the enormous reaction it would bring, can you imagine how awful the situation appears to be from the authors (any many other non-tech-bubble) peoples perspective to even contemplate such a thing? Let alone write an opini…
Amazon sells products at a loss in order to put competitors out of business.
Google disables accounts, with no notification / justification, if someone's opinion offends them. Again with no justification / warning, they alter search traffic to/away form companies, with the ability to choose winners and looser in the 'free' market. I dont know how true it is, but I heard they were suppressing positive search results and bringing results with soldiers pointing guns to peoples heads during the arab spring to destabilize governments.
Facebook - well zuckerburg's manifesto on deciding whose words are heard or suppressed scares the shit out of me.
On top of all this, the big tech companies are avoiding taxes and concentrating jobs to small geographic areas. They are using their power/capital/lawyers to monopolize their respective markets and I feel we are starting to see the consequences of that more and more