Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

honestFeedback t1_jdo6esq wrote

Tech is just fucking weird. They seem to think they should be allowed to grow more rapidly than we've ever seen before, make billions of dollars, but have no accountability for the social chaos they cause because that would moderately impact the huge sums they make.

Facebook could moderate its content much better, but refuse to because it will affect their fucking massive bottom line. Needs to clamped down on hard IMHO.

586

SuperSpread t1_jdpd13s wrote

That part is exactly the same it always has been in America. It was worse with the food industry a century ago. Much worse. So they passed laws and now it's a lot better.

Lots of industries grew as fast as tech, back when they were tech. Like planes, trains, and automobiles. Personal computers and their impact on business is far bigger an impact than tech. The industrial revolution was a much bigger impact on GDP than tech today. Almost an order of magnitude.

If you want to see no accountability, look up what the Dutch India company did in their territories. A literal startup company enslaved and committed genocide with their private armies, just for profit. There was a lot more social chaos from just that.

172

OhHiMark691906 t1_jdpq0nd wrote

But the problem is that current lawmakers cannot wrap their heads around what's happening (Tiktok ceo hearing proved it) or they are in the pockets of these billionaires as they need funds for the elections. It's going to be a very difficult task to regulate the big tech.

60

[deleted] t1_jdpusy9 wrote

[deleted]

27

GenX_DILLIGAF t1_jdrzgm0 wrote

Because automobiles and trains were a progression of moving distances using horse and horse & cart, something which had been around for millennia. They were an advancement of transportation, a more efficient way to move longer distances in less time and move more people and goods those distances, not an entirely new concept.

2

Fusional_Delusional t1_jdq33mo wrote

Even if they could, Congress ceased to function as a governing body unless the same party controls both houses since the mid 90s.

16

altcastle t1_jdqh7di wrote

It doesn’t function now unless a party has filibuster proof senate except for a few things. And it’s impossible for democrats to ever get that due to how stupid senate distribution is.

6

drncu t1_jdqtd8g wrote

My 2 cent on that is it’s a good thing. The US is pretty divided on both issues. Keeping them in a stalemate is preventing either side from making laws that would be unfavorable to the other 50%.

0

Fusional_Delusional t1_jdqu8zp wrote

I used to believe this, but it assumes that all the stalemate is over legitimate disagreement, but at this point they will not permit a “win” even if they actually agree with the point. There should be space to legislate around the (admittedly few) points of legitimate agreement more substantive than naming a post office.

11

mrcapmam1 t1_jdqxqec wrote

The problem is it's not 50% it's more like 30% and that 30% is blocking what most american's want

6

Vorpishly t1_jdqu90i wrote

Oh they can, it’s just they are paid not too. That’s how lobbying works.

4

OhHiMark691906 t1_jdquugv wrote

True. I mean SVB is a classic case of how lobbying works in this country.

2

MutableReference t1_jdq0qsh wrote

Ahhhh capitalism, what will you do next? Yeah btw Facebook as been complicit in a genocide iirc so yeah…

6

3eeve t1_jdqhesb wrote

And? Is this supposed to be a counter argument? If so, it’s tired trash. The ills of yesterday don’t diminish the challenges of today.

3

LudereHumanum t1_jds3a82 wrote

Exactly. Besides, that it already happened a century ago should be an argument for more stringent regulations, not against it.

3

FollowingFeisty5321 t1_jdp8x1f wrote

Big tech needs to be accountable for enabling malignant content to spread, profiting from scam apps, selling counterfeit goods etc, instead of this carte blanche they somehow wield.

59

NefariousnessNo484 t1_jdpc5n6 wrote

Also destroying functional institutions like taxi services and replacing them with unreliable substitutes that lower wages. That and gd Airbnb destroying housing affordability.

31

Adventurous_Job_9555 t1_jdpeug3 wrote

everywhere i ever went taxi services were overpriced not functional institutions (Taxi drivers themselves complained about it)

47

NefariousnessNo484 t1_jdphkku wrote

Lol now Uber and Lyft cost about the same and it's way harder to get a ride than it used to be so I guess tech didn't fix anything at all.

8

[deleted] t1_jdpuzoo wrote

[deleted]

37

NefariousnessNo484 t1_jdqwxoj wrote

When I go to the airport by my house there are tons of taxis just sitting there. I just get in and they take me to my house. The cost is the same or sometimes less than a rideshare.

If I try to do the same thing with a rideshare, I have to wait for 10-20 minutes for it to show up. The drivers are often inexperienced and don't know the shortcuts to get to my house (the area I live in is mapped inaccurately by Google). A lot of them speak zero English and me giving them directions hasn't helped.

1

MightyMoonwalker t1_jdr0dzo wrote

The airport is a pretty small subsegment of national taxi use and this isn't the common urban experience. They might be one place the taxi model worked. For those of us without cars and relying on taxis for normal transportation they were a nightmare.

6

NefariousnessNo484 t1_jdr12se wrote

It's pretty much the same deal at any airport I've been to in the past two years. Cabs have been way more efficient for me and sometimes cheaper. The only time I rideshare is when I return from an airport. You can say my experience doesn't matter, but that's a pretty weak argument imo.

1

MightyMoonwalker t1_jdr1dca wrote

I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I am saying there are other large markets where the cab solution made our lives a nightmare. You should choose what works best for you and the market can decide where taxis are working great and where they are failing.

2

NefariousnessNo484 t1_jdr2fpn wrote

The point is that exactly what you think is happening isn't. The rideshare companies are propped up with investor funds. They were only able to capture the market because of unsustainably low pricing. It is not a fair fight at all.

1

MightyMoonwalker t1_jdr913t wrote

I still use them, and they beat both expectations and earnings in Q4. We'll see what the market does, but I don't think Uber is going anywhere. I agree they used low pricing to capture market share and that wasn't a fair fight, but I am still not ever going back to taxis.

2

NefariousnessNo484 t1_jdrbtit wrote

Congrats, you bought into their marketing strategy. Remember when they used to argue rideshares would take cars off the road and reduce emissions through carpooling? People don't even remember why it's called ride-sharing in the first place. They basically lied in order to take over an industry using billionaire funds.

1

MightyMoonwalker t1_jdrfucb wrote

I like the service for what it is, so I will still use it for what it is. I don't particularly remember or care what their marketing was. I judge it by the value it brings me today.

1

Adventurous_Job_9555 t1_jdqav5f wrote

insane mental gymnastiscs to pretend those dont have advantages over taxi, you must be a taxi company owner or something

10

mnemonicer22 t1_jdpoykg wrote

Nah, we got a shiny app to harvest all our data out of it.

2

altcastle t1_jdqlmyf wrote

Paying ridiculous amounts like 1/4 maybe 1/2 a mil for a medallion, right? Insane.

1

BasielBob t1_jdsmpyc wrote

They were overpriced in part because of all the regulations, standards, specialized equipment, medallion taxes, etc.

Uber / Lyft we’re allowed to compete in the same space but without having to follow the same rules and regulations.

0

Rodgers4 t1_jdpry5f wrote

This is some revisionist history unless you’re specifically referring to a densely populated city that you can hail a cab. Before Uber/Lyft, if you weren’t in an urban core like Chicago or New York, you had to call the cab company and they would maybe show up in 30-60 minutes, not call you when they got there, and leave.

With Uber/Lyft you have a driver and know when they’re coming via the app and you can communicate with them. I’d pay more for that alone. Too many nights at a bar, calling a cab, and getting some BS “they’ll be outside in an hour” only to never hear back or get a cab.

45

bony_doughnut t1_jdrkftm wrote

Oh, and don't forget how awesome it is to pay $200 for a hotel room then have to hide in the bathroom after your kids fall asleep because it's literally just a single, 50sqft room

6

NefariousnessNo484 t1_jdqvzpf wrote

You assume no one cares about what happens in Chicago or New York. Pretty typical of the tech attitude. If it doesn't affect CA it doesn't matter.

−8

vonkempib t1_jdq03r0 wrote

No that’s how capitalism works. Taxis failed to innovate. Someone did it better.

Edit. Airbnb is different than Uber destroying taxi

16

BasielBob t1_jdsmtv4 wrote

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that Uber and Lyft don’t have to follow the same rules and regulations as the taxi industry.

1

Hawk13424 t1_jdqm5o4 wrote

Sorry, taxis are a complete shit service. They were like cable TV. They’d get a lock on a city and then provide terrible service without competition. Overpriced, slow, no innovation.

5

DJdangerdick t1_jdqhn0l wrote

It’s more Zillow and friends that destroyed ( and are still damaging) the housing market.

3

bitfriend6 t1_jdplqtb wrote

Silicon Valley was founded upon a railroad that preformed the same social disruption in the 19th century, turning an otherwise quiet frontier state full of mexicans into a polluted industrial power plant capable of building nuclear weapons. It's not weird, it's capitalism, and the eighties are over. The growth era is over, and we can't expect these businesses to not abuse their power in the same way every other gigantic network has before them. The government needs to regulate them, if the Federal government is too paralyzed by the right than individual states can.

We literally did it with the railroads, and did it so hard where most Americans no longer consider railroads valuable or even important as we built a society utterly divorced from them. This has it's own social consequences, but demonstrates that it can be done if there is will to power.

17

Fenix42 t1_jdprdab wrote

The thing is, tech is still in the new disruptive thing phase. It has not really even gotten started.

I am 42 amd a 2nd generation programer. My dad started in the 80s. He went over to the hadwareside after a few years. He still proframed at home as a hobby, though. I started programming at like 8 on my dads lap.

I have grown with tech. I got to learn it as it became more complicated. Tech passed the point a guy like me can keep up with all the new shit when I was in my 20s and working in the industry.

The speed has only increased since then.

I agree that we need to keep tech in check. There are major issues that need to be handled. We just need to be careful how we do it. There is still a lot tombe gained from it.

12

seri_machi t1_jdqobwl wrote

AI is a field that is blowing up. Humans aren't done inventing technological revolutions yet (unless of course we start letting AI do it.) And the center of that is still Silicon Valley, the city of dreamers.

But yeah, regulate big tech. AI only makes that more urgent.

2

WhatTheZuck420 t1_jdqx97h wrote

see the new knives out film. they're all there, only a million times shittier.

2

Riversntallbuildings t1_jdrlxzr wrote

Dynamic, effective regulations are possible. We need a new generation of lawmakers that understand digital market and apply out existing Anti-Trust regulations to those digital markets.

Labor / worker rights a woefully outdated as well.

1

b_lumenkraft t1_jdqbg0l wrote

> They seem to think they should be allowed to grow more rapidly than we've ever seen before, make billions of dollars, but have no accountability for the social chaos they cause because that would moderately impact the huge sums they make.

You describe externalities in capitalism quite nicely - not only tech.

0

seri_machi t1_jdqorz4 wrote

Software is unlike all other major industries before it, at least in one way. For approximately $0 in materials, you can create a product that can be sold to a billion people with no shipping costs. Sucessful software companies are profit printing machines.

2

b_lumenkraft t1_jdqqez6 wrote

I mean, you are not wrong, but you make it appear as if software would just spring into existence. That is of course not the case. There are costs involved. Creating software is labor-intensive and a very complex process. There are indeed costs involved.

Yes, it's a high-margin industry but not very different margins than, say, energy companies.

5

ArmsForPeace84 t1_jdqcwc3 wrote

Boundless greed, entitlement, and outright fraud rebranded as "Effective Altruism."

−1

seri_machi t1_jdqpliy wrote

You thinking of Bankman-Fried? Effective Altruism is much bigger than him, and there's nothing saying people who commit fraud can't also donate to good charities. Some of my friends in tech take the Giving What We Can pledge, where they donate 10% of their salary to charities like the Against Malaria Foundation that have a high investment : life-saving ratio and low management costs. Effective Altruism an ethical thought movement heavily influenced by Peter Singer's philosophy. There are legitamite critisisms of it, but those critisisms are more philosophical, not "it's all fraud, actually."

1

retief1 t1_jdpm4wd wrote

Ehhh, at their scale, paying humans to moderate is a tad infeasible, and ai-based moderation is very much a work in progress. For that matter, I think a lot of people would be really uncomfortable if a random human was reading the messages they sent to their mother. They could definitely do better, particularly when it comes to really widely spread stuff, but I doubt that they'll ever be able to get all objectionable content off of the site.

−5