TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Anti-Capitalist Case for Standards

28 点作者 kelseyfrog9 天前

12 条评论

BlursedTarot9 天前
This is beautifully written and frames the issue in a fresh way for me. I'm taking away an appeal to individuals and business entities to intentionally optimize for economic public good as opposed to profit and that to contribute to international standardization efforts is one practical way to pledge to that goal.
superb-owl9 天前
If I were King of America, the first thing I&#x27;d do is start enforcing standard protocols for things like auth, messaging, data export&#x2F;migration, etc. Mostly relying on industry to decide _what_ the protocols should be, but making sure everyone adheres to them.<p>Data interoperability would make our digital lives so much better.
评论 #43865898 未加载
wmf9 天前
This is a rosy view of standards that ignores how often they are perverted for rent seeking.
评论 #43866426 未加载
评论 #43877413 未加载
tptacek9 天前
It&#x27;s funny to me that a piece like this is as likely to polarize people away from standards as towards it, since the case it&#x27;s making is essentially orthogonal to the most salient debate about standards.
评论 #43866428 未加载
cadamsdotcom9 天前
Well written article and very thought provoking!<p>The more universal a need is, the less it should be supplied by capitalism.<p>Education; healthcare: universal needs. When left to the private sector, prices explode and exploitation reigns. Because no matter the price, people will pay.<p>Las Vegas’ strip on the other hand, needs no government intervention. Folks there are spending money they can live without!<p>American culture worships the market as solver of all problems - which it is while there’s still growth. But when things settle in, standards allow new players to keep incumbents honest.<p>Regarding standards, neat that the “standard” for C is ANSI C. It calls back to a time when standards bodies were key to technology development. It predates even IBM’s XT and AT PC - a transition away from standards-bodies-driven hardware development toward market-leader driven.<p>Ultimately the universality of standards and ability for new players should always be maintained in every market - it should never be impossible to disrupt lazy incumbents. Standards are crucial to keeping markets and industries healthy.<p>Soooo how we doing over in social media?
Nevermark8 天前
We don&#x27;t need an end to capitalism.<p>Just an end to capitalism that perversely carves out an exception to normal reciprocal arrangements for using other people&#x27;s property, for one of the most important categories of property: universally owned property. I.e. the environment.<p>Today, the value of our joint inherited environment has no systematic representation. The default is, do your damage until it is significant enough, and some white knight politicians, finally try to limit the damage with one-off narrow per-case idiosyncratic limits.<p>No wonder protecting the environment is near impossible. Legally and politically, our systems are tilted far into the direction of non-protection. Ignoring the literal reality of joint inheritance, and ignoring the tremendous value being mismanaged.<p>The default should be: reciprocal agreements in the form of cap and trade for all public asset impact. Most especially the environment. Exactly as it is required for impact anyone wants to have on another owners private property.<p>Then the legal and political default would be to protect the value of joint assets, and maximize the value back to the public of their use.<p>Then all the wonderful magic of capitalism, for optimizing the value of resources, would work for the environment.<p>This even creates an avenue for some universal income. We all should be paid for use of the non-human created, jointly inherited asset: the environment.<p>Instead of the default being endless over pollution of CO2, plastics, etc., the default would be all entities pay for what they use, and pay even more for what they use that requires fund for offsetting the damage. Suddenly capitalism and the environment work.<p>And we all get and dividend, reflecting our jointly inherited asset, on its use.<p>Value which will go up for everyone as the economy grows, without any form of wealth redistribution.<p>The numbers of top tier problems this would contribute solutions or partial solutions to, is considerable.
SpicyLemonZest9 天前
I don&#x27;t really understand this article. The authors don&#x27;t seem interested in the details of either capitalism or standards development organizations. Just because they&#x27;re nonprofit doesn&#x27;t mean they&#x27;re outside of the market economy! (ANSI must have forgotten about their purported commitment to &quot;information sharing for free or nearly free&quot; when they started charging $2500 for the complete 2023 SQL standard.)
Cordiali9 天前
I&#x27;d agree with non-capitalist, but the authors are far too absolute for my liking.<p>The whole article hinges on examples of a non-capitalist mode of knowledge production being hard to imagine or conceptualise. Wikipedia is often used as an example of precisely that idea; I reckon I&#x27;d see it in that context at least once a month.<p>At this point, it&#x27;s basically the <i>standard example.</i>
t1E9mE7JTRjf9 天前
The thing &#x27;anti-capitalists&#x27; never seem to understand, is that it&#x27;s not a top down system but bottom up emergent human behaviour. A function of consent&#x2F;interoperability at scale beyond the immediate family&#x2F;tribe unit. Thus hard to see an &quot;end to capitalism&quot;. That would be like an end to language. We&#x27;d just re-invent it.
评论 #43865689 未加载
评论 #43865947 未加载
评论 #43865567 未加载
评论 #43865784 未加载
评论 #43865624 未加载
评论 #43865601 未加载
pessimizer9 天前
You don&#x27;t need an anti-capitalist case for standards. The capitalist case for standards is that you don&#x27;t want firms to succeed though manipulation of the market because it keeps them from competing in productive ways (i.e improving product or process.)<p>Energy that companies spend on dirty tricks and dirty trick defense is waste, and makes us all poorer. But you can&#x27;t expect any particular firm to unilaterally give up an incompatibility moat, unless all of them do. Government stepping in to set standards is solving a collective action problem.<p>And standards can also be bullshit. No mention of the OOXML debacle.
readthenotes19 天前
&quot;And so we return to where we started: the difficulty of imagining an end to capitalism. We do not claim to have a solution to that particular problem&quot;<p>It&#x27;s pretty funny to see such a blatantly biased article coming out of academia. Oh wait.<p>Meanwhile, I&#x27;ll save my paychecks to buy the texts of some of those anti-capitalist produced standards.<p>In other actual anti-capitalist news, the NIH says we shouldn&#x27;t have to pay twice for government sponsored research.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;deepnewz.com&#x2F;us-domestic-policy&#x2F;nih-to-end-paywalls-on-nih-funded-research-starting-july-1-2025-backed-dr-j-b-106bb2d4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;deepnewz.com&#x2F;us-domestic-policy&#x2F;nih-to-end-paywalls-...</a>
评论 #43865578 未加载
评论 #43865591 未加载
jongjong9 天前
Standards are a bad thing. Convenient isn&#x27;t the same as good. They mostly help large companies to monopolize large markets. Without standards, there would be a patchwork of companies catering to different communities. It would create a lot of work opportunities, lots of competition and there would be adapters to bridge between different interfaces. It would be more hassle but it would improve everyone&#x27;s work life 100x and would probably result in faster technological progress as more people would be able to have capital to innovate, in a more flexible self-directed way.
评论 #43865508 未加载
评论 #43865698 未加载
评论 #43865506 未加载