Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

uhh... you're missing a critical part of that equation which is government/private influence. A private corporation can't "ban" VPNs and encryption without a huge backlash from their retail customer base and the corporate entities which depend on their networks and the full lobbying might of all tech businesses in general which profit from a healthy free internet.

The only way this would work is via unilateral gov policy, which in recent years are common in mega-trade deals (as some politicians have called it the "gold standard" of state/capitalist countries policy), and which is exactly why Bell never tried to do it privately themselves.

Much like the majority of the worst examples of major corporate abuses in the paste few decades they have almost always been businesses who are close friends with government. Often in the most heavily regulated industries: telecom/ISPs, pharma [1], finance [no citation needed, see post-2008 policies which crippled small-bank competition and reduced the market to 5 mega-banks], and energy - as we've seen recently with PG&E in California:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-politicians-direct-capital...

Despite rhetoric about "corporate greed" causing the PG&E safety lapses, the California government has played a massive role in controlling PG&E's capital expenditure and safety policy for two decades (including giving them a free pass from any market-consequences after a similar fire in 2017) AND they already charge the highest per person energy costs in the entire country.

Given that forced mandate PG&E simply couldn't have afforded the money on those massive safety improvements even if they wanted to (without further burden on tax payers), they were already pushing their customers to the max via state influenced spending policies on climate change tech. Plus what incentive did they have when they had 1500 other incidents and their friends in gov repeatedly gave them a free pass?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical...

This narrative fashions PG&E as victims when they are the criminals here. Please have a look at Judge Alsup's early comments here [1].

The regulatory framework was compromised by lobbying and the usual problems like ex PG&E execs in regulatory positions so there was no oversight. This is not a problem of government but corrupt compromised 'business friendly' governance enabled by the twin evils of regulatory capture and corruption which we have seen replicated in all industries.

The idea that without governance these companies would behave themselves is some kind of mythical fantasy completely disconnected from the real world and a long catalogued history of self serving greed driven behavior. No business is under obligation to behave unethically to make money.

[1] https://apnews.com/e297eb8082294ee19588a05cd87670ec

Of course PG&E is not the victim, they should have suffered the consequences of their negligence long ago. Consequences which they are finally facing today after the political protection they've been offered for decades is no longer viable - aka easily hidden in exchange for backroom deals with the state.

No company could have survived the 1500 safety lapses PG&E made without significant changes via legitimately confronting the liability normal private companies face without massive intervention by government (aka the securitization of liabilities which get pushed onto California consumers which is why they pay the highest rates in the country).

There are countless examples where PG&E was given a free pass by the local governments in the name of keeping the status quo, including executives/board smartly making politically-friendly climate policy compromises to keep on their good side in exchange for protection from any real liability.

When you get compromises from private entities in exchange for free-passes for prior negligence you only get bigger and bigger failures... which is exactly what happened. In the past the smaller compromises were easier to hide, but they consistently were getting worse (this isn't even the first bankruptcy). PG&E has never been held fully accountable as any non-well politically connected company would.

Finally, the gov "keeping the power on" excuse still had plenty of options that don't include avoiding massive restructuring or total bankruptcy/destruction of the negligent parties. Better, more responsible, companies should have took over long ago. But that doesn't happen in state heavy economic systems where political favours are preferred over markets as it is in California, just like it doesn't happen in other more obvious negligent countries like Russia and China. When politically connected companies always survive regardless of behaviour then consumers and the public always lose. Period.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com