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

Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#51

Post by Monroe13 »

harikb wrote: post #18
harry8 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the anti-big-tech policy really genuinely unpopular with voters as you're implying or does it trigger the backlash from Big Tech? Like for example facebrick adjusting their algos to promote say, anti-Warren content. How would we know? It seems to me like most people support Warren's anti-big-tech stance in principle or they don't much care. Not many outside of the bubble seem to be genuinely opposed to it and i…

> Then there's the obscenely large amounts spent by big tech on lobbying in washington and PR in the media and in places like right here. Any data here? I would have thought compared to other industries, tech hasn’t spend nearly enough! Few people occasionally tweet our Google or Facebook having donated $2700 to one republican superpact or another. This has to be peanuts compared to any real money involved.

Google has had the largest (or nearly so) lobbying spend for the past few cycles and in 2019 Facebook and Amazon are the top spending corporations. Spending a few million more than the defense contractors.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders

There is no database of PR spending, but it’s telling that a study conducted by Edelman, the worlds largest PR firm, found Tech to be the most trustworthy sector. A cynic might say they are pandering to an important client base.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#52

Post by greesil »

firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

If you read his book, the 2016 election is not "his whole deal". Zucked touches upon it, but also the harm of the filter bubble, the amplification of outrage, and many other topics.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#53

Post by Monroe13 »

dfsegoat wrote: post #17
firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

>> Based on this survey, Tech is still the most trusted industry sector: https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer Devils advocate: Is there a chance this amounts to willful ignorance? Seems to me like once you are 'hooked on something': Amazon 1-click ordering, A social network, your phone - it's not easy to admit that you have 'a problem', let alone condemn a whole industry. Beyond that: If 'they' actually know every…

It’s worth noting that Edelman is the world’s largest PR firm and their annual Trust Barometer is a major business development tool for them.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#54

Post by asveikau »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #31
greendream17 wrote: post #22

The director of the Manhattan Project Robert Oppenheimer went on a public speaking tour to apologising for his part in creating the atomic bom. It was Von Neumann who cynically remarked that: One cannot apologise for something without also first claiming it as one's own accomplishment. Wether is the atomic bom or Facebook, I am sure they would have existed without their conscientious defectors. There is something muc…

*bomb You may have written about bill of materials enough that BOM is in your autocorrect.

Or they store a lot of utf-16 and need some byte order marks.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#55

Post by sujNansnam »

Monroe13 wrote: post #51
harikb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then there's the obscenely large amounts spent by big tech on lobbying in washington and PR in the media and in places like right here. Any data here? I would have thought compared to other industries, tech hasn’t spend nearly enough! Few people occasionally tweet our Google or Facebook having donated $2700 to one republican superpact or another. This has to be peanuts compared to any real money involved.

Google has had the largest (or nearly so) lobbying spend for the past few cycles and in 2019 Facebook and Amazon are the top spending corporations. Spending a few million more than the defense contractors. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders There is no database of PR spending, but it’s telling that a study conducted by Edelman, the worlds largest PR firm, found Tech to be the most trustworthy s…

> There is no database of PR spending, but it’s telling that a study conducted by Edelman, the worlds largest PR firm, found Tech to be the most trustworthy sector. A cynic might say they are pandering to an important client base.

Survey showing that people trust tech is evidence that tech is corrupting our politics. Jeez, talk about confirmation bias. A PR firm could also use a negative trust score to sell a firm on how they need more PR.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#56

Post by [deleted] »

CriticalCathed wrote: post #37
antielectronite wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one reason journalists are having a moral panic about tech is that a lot of them seem to have a very unhealthy twitter addiction, which clouds their view on the impact social media has on society. A lot of media people seem to spend ~8 hours tweeting almost everyday, which is obviously unhealthy but not indicative of how most people use "big tech".

Replace twitter with facebook/instagram and there you go. People spend hours and hours a day on there.

[deleted]

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#57

Post by csallen »

antielectronite wrote: post #20
firasd wrote: post #8

His whole deal is about the 2016 election. While it exposed legitimate issues, I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year. In fact I suspect even now the Techlash is overstated. Elizabeth Warren spent the month of October going after Zuckerberg and meanwhile lost her front-runner status in the polls. Anti-Big-Tech talking points may be red meat for journalists, but a…

I think one reason journalists are having a moral panic about tech is that a lot of them seem to have a very unhealthy twitter addiction, which clouds their view on the impact social media has on society. A lot of media people seem to spend ~8 hours tweeting almost everyday, which is obviously unhealthy but not indicative of how most people use "big tech".

Tech -- especially social media -- is often directly competitive with old media, and has for years at this point posed an existential threat. From Jobs wanting a 30% cut of the Times' revenue on iOS, to Amazon's cutthroat relationship with the publishing industry, Thiel's lawsuit against Gawker, Google search/news controlling distribution, Facebook's algorithm changes literally ending numerous media companies, etc., it's been pretty nonstop for over a decade now.

Always worth a mention when speculating as to why journalists tend to be so anti-tech nowadays.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#58

Post by harry8 »

Animats wrote: post #38
harry8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am on the right. Those on the right aren't changing their views on Warren because she discusses big tech. Really they aren't suddenly decicding they don't like her anymore. Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost…

Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost curve and has network externalities. (Hence why there aren't 27 similar magnitude businesses competing in the Facebook space, for example). That's not market failure, it's nor…

This is a difference in understanding of definitions.

This /is/ market failure by the normal definition of market failure in the academic discipline of economics. It's not poetry. National Defence is an example of market failure. Any monopoly, eg, drinking water distribution, is an example of market failure. There is no economy anywhere on earth at any time through history up until now that has not had market failure as a feature of that economy. Not the only feature. I would say not even the major feature of the well functioning ones at least but everyone has it and tries to deal with. Is the cure worse than the disease? Is there a better cure, maybe even no cure. Most actual policy discussion in any newspaper is a discussion of just that.

Market failure is a very normal thing. What /I/ don't want is intervention where there is no market failure. What I don't want is regulation for the sake of regulation (or the sake of regulatory capture by the incumbant(s), or the sake of empire building by some public servant(s) or some witch hunt to win politcal favor at the ballot or whatever else on those lines). Regulation is the only sane response to market failure and has been since literally forever. See national defence.

Re: Big Tech's Big Defector: Roger McNamee

#60

Post by harry8 »

nightsd01 wrote: post #35
harry8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am on the right. Those on the right aren't changing their views on Warren because she discusses big tech. Really they aren't suddenly decicding they don't like her anymore. Besides this the reasons for regulation are pretty damn compelling. Clear cut case of market failure. You cannot take your business elsewhere to deal with the failings of big tech. It is an industry with a long run decreasing average total cost…

Monopolies are typically considered “bad” because they hurt consumers by jacking up prices when they acquire a dominant market position. How is this happening with Facebook? How is Facebook hurting consumers in a way that could be alleviated by breaking it up into 5 smaller companies? If you take a look at something like disinformation campaigns, that’s something that big tech companies can handle MUCH better than sm…

Example:

Every single ad on facebook (and every single other social media business) should be in a searchable database along with the targeting purchased and all the statistics on the number of times seen and all demographic information available to aid the targeting.

It's a regulation. Is it a good one? The idea behind it is so that lies cannot be /broadcast/ in secret. That the Nazi party could broadcast inflamitory lies targeted at the mentally infirm by paying social media companies, ie facebook, to do it, in secret, while remaining anonymous is a problem.

Facebook's own policies as the dominant player are offering zero part of any solution other than to increase their share of the advertising spend. Really. Total focus of all their policy is just that. At the expense of, well who exactly?

Television is regulated. Newspapers are regulated. Radio is regulated. Secret facebook broadcasts are not. This is better because it makes facebook more money and worse in every other way we can imagine and some we haven't yet.

Good to see everybody declaring their interests in this thread though!

Post reply on HN