United States vs. Google • Hacker News Board

Re: United States vs. Google

#351

Post by romanoderoma » Sat, Oct 24, 2020, 1:06 PM UTC

garyfirestorm wrote: post #348

romanoderoma wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds like you want to punish them for being successful. People are worried by their power. Too much power is dangerous. Google works at global scale, if even the US want to stop them from becoming even more powerful there must mean something. If you think about it the NBA draft was invented to avoid that the best team chose the best players year after year It's what you call "punish their success" I cal it "en…

Facebook came after google, and managed to compete in ad business, got orkut and google+ discarded pretty quickly. Playing devil's advocate here, but doesnt that prove that no matter how big/powerful you are, some random kid could still take you down. Look at Big 3 and Tesla...etc

Facebook ad business have become a thing after an enormous amount of money have been poured into the company

Google is king of the keywords (products and services), Facebook is king of targeting (brand awareness)

But they are not really competing against each other on the contrary the gap is widening

Google made 61 billions more than FB in 2018 and 65 more in 2019

That's why FB is moving towards a marketplace based on their own cryptocurrency

Re: United States vs. Google

#352

Post by edgyquant » Sun, Oct 25, 2020, 2:13 AM UTC

alexashka wrote: post #208

edgyquant wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe IQ is a relevant metric to determine ones ability to be informed politically.

You don't 'believe' an IQ range of 20-34, labelled as 'severely retarded' [0] is relevant to one's ability to be informed? https://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html

I believe that is an edge case and you know it

Re: United States vs. Google

#353

Post by n4r9 » Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

dudul wrote: post #189

n4r9 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the idea is that those two parties would have more to gain from having evidence-based policies, and more to lose from outright lies.

Would they? I'm gonna be cynical here but why would they care? What would the "educated people" do otherwise? Not vote? So what? One of the 2 parties would gain power regardless.

If the populace are better educated, informed, and engaged, then having policies which are more evidence-based than your opponents' is more likely to get a greater vote share. This shifts the direction of the arms race away from senseless posturing and towards actual policy debate.

That's the idea at least, and I think it's worth considering. But yes, speaking as someone looking in to the US from outside, a more proportional voting system would also do wonders for your democratic legitimacy.