I'll add that regulation can be an <i>entrenching</i> mechanism, as the overhead of compliance has less relative cost to large existing businesses than to small, new ones.<p>For example: if social media companies were required to ID their users <i>in person</i> within 30 days of sign-up ("think of the children" IDK), the infrastructure to comply with that regulation would make it extremely difficult for a new startups to pull off, while big incumbents with compliance departments already staffed up can make it work.<p>Even worthwhile safety regulations have this effect. You can't just start a hazardous chemical transportation company in a weekend like you can a software company. I'd say that's working as intended, but it does still give larger players a competitive edge <i>just for being larger/older.</i><p>For my 2¢, limiting acquisitions and mergers is the way to go here. The laws already exist, they just need to be more strictly enforced. If a company's core business grows, the company can and should grow. But we don't want a ravenous corporate blob that absorbs everything tangential to its business, whether that's for growth or defensive reasons.
I don't see how government can make even a dent in what are ultimately cultural issues without drastic changes to the core of our laws. The idea that you can't deny service to an individual for their political views is a big shift. The idea that businesses must align with government goals is a big shift. The idea that limitations must be imposed on an individuals exposure to social media for their own good is a big shift.
Three Stanford professors who have zero business experience have all the answers.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Reich" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Reich</a><p><a href="https://profiles.stanford.edu/jeremy-weinstein" rel="nofollow">https://profiles.stanford.edu/jeremy-weinstein</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Sahami" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Sahami</a><p>Contrast this with what Senator McGovern wrote after he retired to run a small hotel business:<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203406404578070543545022704" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203406404578070...</a><p>"In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn's 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender. Today we are much closer to a general acknowledgment that government must encourage business to expand and grow. Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and others have, I believe, changed the debate of our party. We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities."
I do academic work in this area, which was inspired by watching Reddit and HN for a decade.<p>I do think something must be done, but the notion that it should be the government taking action scares me. I believe, platonically that is the right way for government to act, to take necessary actions to counter predatory behavior.<p>What scares me is that we chanced into this. Zuck made some brilliant movies but he was the same guy at 22 that thought that younger people were smarter. Notice he wasn't young enough to say that at 32. The people in government do not understand tech. They don't understand how it works, they don't understand where it is going, and they don't understand its ethos. Government right now is dominated by ideologues and demagogues. I'm very worried that any government action is going to end up being something that only FB, Google, etc can do anything about.<p>Why does the government need to act? Why spend so much time complaining about it on HN? We've been doing that for a decade.
Rich, cloistered elites discover the bare minimum of ethical considerations after being entirely walled off from the broader American political conversations for the better part of two decades. Says Reed Hastings OF A BOOK COMING OUT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021: "In System Error, we finally have a book about the digital revolution that is serious rather than sensationalistic." This isn't serious.
I'd be embarrassed to write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper with an analysis this simplistic. Why did it take three guys with PhDs to tell us that Regulation Can Be Good Actually™?
That article is awful. Three professors coming up with five-world clickbait memes, while evading real issues.<p>A real question is, in areas where network effects are very strong, how do we avoid monopolies forming?
Until you fix Kstreet corruption of the legislative body any regulation pushes will almost invariably end up benefiting the big corps despite however noble the idea behhind the particlar legislion starts out.
Sorry guys, you are super smart and you talking good things but all what it is is foam making. Yes, new book, even if in 100% describing reality as reality is is not enough. Maybe im 10-20 year someone state: Hey, it was already written 20 years ago !<p>And all that Congress and rest of the bunnies "activities" is just foam and smoke.<p>Why ? Becouse US as a whole makes money from current state. Corporations are just part of US controlling rest of the world.<p>Not so evil so far and always will be someone on the top. Except maybe South America think USA is that bad capitalist from XVIII+ century...<p>Still, USA have a lot of influence via tech and tech is used by plain peoples. So when something is bad in USA it have influence on rest of us. Eg. attempts to deny repairing phones... Pure idiocy but who cares in Congress or elsewhere ??<p>And, sadly, you - USA - will do not change much until forced by someone proposing (and having some power to enforce) some sanity in tech and other parts of life.<p>It's not easy to be World capital country :)
In Europe digital humanisms seems to be the umbrella term... <a href="https://dighum.ec.tuwien.ac.at/perspectives-on-digital-humanism/" rel="nofollow">https://dighum.ec.tuwien.ac.at/perspectives-on-digital-human...</a>
the government really doesn't like a challenge to its power.<p>as seen from past antitrust actions, I expect much of "big tech" to be thoroughly dismantled.<p>alphabet will be chopped up along business lines. Each business will have to develop its own independent ad system.<p>facebook will be forced to spin off their acqs and separate completely from them.<p>amazon and AWS will be split, obviously.<p>dunno about apple. at least split their entertainment businesses from their hardware businesses.<p>This will be a great opportunity for startups who might otherwise never would have a chance.