Hacker News Reader

> What are the unintended consequences of these regulations?

I don’t know about the unintended consequences, but when George Soros comes out in public he is always pushing an agenda. So perhaps the question should be, what are the intended consequences?

Does Soros want governments to regulate these companies for economic reasons, or is it a power grab for control of the flow of information?

These companies have painted a huge target on their back by amassing so much data. There are many powerful organizations that would like access to that data.

> There are many powerful organizations that would like access to that data.

It's not about access to the data, but rather about controlling the flow of information. The rise of social media and Google represents a shift of power away from traditional media (which Soros and his allies have a relatively higher degree of influence over) and to .. well, something else (I'm going going to pretend it's "the people", and it's not "the russians", either).

The power has already been grabbed by Google and Facebook. The only question is whether the public will have some oversight or whether it will allow so much power (probably much more than that held by the Robber Barons of the infamous Gilded Age) to be held by corporations.

I feel like the solution doesn't necessarily need to involve new regulations. Maybe just the application of existing ones to those companies would be enough? Like his mention of "public utilities" - what would happen, if search engines / social media started getting classified as such?

Especially if This Time(tm) we manage to get an open alternative running well enough for public use. I know I'm definitely going to look into ActivityPub for my social circle, and DDG is more and more credible. There's yet hope I guess!

DDG works only because Google does if everyone shifts from Google and it’s search results tank because it loses all of the data associated with what and how people search so will DDG.

What do you mean? DDG uses the Bing api for its results, not Google.

I thought DDG uses multiple search engines including google.

Almost every public utility I've dealt with is completely dysfunctional, so I'm not sure I'd advocate that unless my real aim was to destory them (which it seems to be for some).

It's never clear to me what people even mean by this - it seems like a fashionable phrase to throw around. So I second your question - what practically speaking would happen under this scenario? I'd prefer to hear the people advocating it be explicit about what they want and why.

I'll be honest here: I don't know. I've been thinking for some time now whether Facebook and Google should be "socialized", and I just can't see that working. In fact, I only mentioned utilities in hope someone who has an idea how it could work would share it. And the main question I wanted to ask is if we really need new regulations for whatever-we-want-to-do with Google & Facebook, or can we just reuse the old ones, and skip the part when we give governments more power?

FWIW, in my perfect imaginary world, Google Search would work as it had worked few years ago (back when it had less ads), while social networks like Facebook would be forced to interoperate through some shared protocols. But then again, my vision of the perfect Internet involves significantly reducing control the publishing parties have - that is, those parties should publish content and services, not dictate the way I should consume said content and services. I should be perfectly free to render any site any way I like, including not rendering it at all, but navigating through my own (or third party) software.

Something as simple as mandating that all of a user's activity (and with all I mean including e.g. click tracking on FB or external sites) and accessible information (i.e. posts the user can view) can be exported in real time in a machine readable format would basically do the trick.

It'd allow you to basically build your own Facebook app, migrate meaningfully to another service and build other services that meaningfully integrate with Facebook... and effectively turn FB/Twitter into public utilies and enable real competition to Google to appear by allowing users to share key data such as which result they clicked on in response to which query.

But regulations strike both ways. Your consumption patterns might not mirror the mandated consumption patterns set forth by the government. For instance, this is what folks against socialized medicine advocate - your freedoms as an individual are reduced.

I think this strikes at the heart of my contempt for heavy handed approach to regulation.

I kinda want to take that back and say we shouldn’t be having this conversation at all. This narrative that everything needs to be regulated and the Internet is a something makes me more worried that we’ll be required to do things as much as we’ll be protected in doing other things.

E.g. a relationship between the government and Facebook in any fashion pushes us closer to allowing Facebook as some form of shared trust - perhaps making it an eligible Voting ID. We get to a point where it becomes more hassle than it’s worth, benefiting the Gov and FB, but not really benefiting the end user.

Maybe that’s the real Net-Neutrality: keeping a hands-off relationship between how I consume information and the regulation of such.

Yes, I feel like the regulatory movement is underway, and the narrative is beginning to brew. And, I think we’re having someone else’s conversation.

Well, I'm not into forcing things on others, so I can't agree with your perfect world. However, I'm more interested in what "socialized" actually means: it seems like just another phrase like "treated as public utility" that doesn't mean much to me on its own. Is this about the government taking control of the company?

Completely dysfunctional... Does your power regularly go out? Is your water poisoning you?

If you live in a major city in the US or Europe, your utilities almost certainly "just work," and this narrative is pure ideological bullshit based in fantasy.

Have you ever lived anywhere where utilities are not state-regulated? Are you comparing them to that experience?

You don't have to--you can just compare something that should be a utility (Comcast) with something that is (your power company). Hey, look! Turns out those government regulations help.

If Facebook and Google were to be public utilities then that would be a scary proposition. It would be some black mirror and sesame credit cross over. The social data mined from what you do would determine how good/obedient of a citizen/consumer you are and hence how well the regime treats you.

I actually prefer they not be regulated as public utilities because at least this way you have some measure of opting out of having information collected about you.

This is already happening (employers monitoring online activity). The only question is whether this activity will be subject to public oversight or not.

If there were reforms to copyright law, it would be easier for a Google competitor to enter the market.

When I was at Google, we were a de facto monopoly on search so we were subject to more stringent regulation. I do believe we were effectively treated as a monopoly on search.

(Yes, this does have consequences down to the individual developer level)

What monopoly regulation would apply to a dominant market position delivering value at no cost to the user, for a product who’s competitors are but a click away?

I thought US monopoly laws were more about dealing with unfair profiteering off customers?

Or do I not know that Google’s advertising rates are regulated by monopoly laws?

the big thing that falls under monopoly regulations is google favoring ads for their products over competitors. showing google shopping results over amazon ones, for example.

> I thought US monopoly laws were more about dealing with unfair profiteering off customers?

This finally seems to be starting to shift.

> What monopoly regulation would apply to a dominant market position delivering value at no cost to the user

Look at what is happening to Google in the EU.

>hearing the billionaire cry foul gives me pause.

I guess from Soros point of view the underlying issue is that the social media amplify outrage driving up lobbying costs.