Net neutrality is important, but it’s hardly the difference between Facebook “dominating” the internet or not; a reality you can see by looking at jurisdictions where net neutrality is in force. vice.com/en/article/epx…
Facebook and other major tech companies control a lot of the underlying infrastructure of the internet, from undersea cables to cloud storage. They also benefit from network effects and other forms of structural power that will continue to ensure their dominance.
I have to say, I’m getting really tired of these hyperbolic statements about tech policy that distort public understanding. Net neutrality will stop “domination,” Section 230 is the only thing that allows us to post online, crypto regulation is unprecedented “surveillance.”
None of these things are accurate. Some are exaggeration, while others are outright falsehoods, and either way they get in the way of a nuanced discussion about the problems with tech and how to address them. They’re also often very US-centric.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Friedman’s argument is that governments can’t solve problems and instead we need to rely on the market and brilliant entrepreneurs like Elon Musk to save us. He constantly downplays the state’s role (on vaccines this time) and places his faith in tech and the market.
This isn’t new. If you go back to “Revenge of the Electric Car” in 2011, he says of EVs, “I do not believe this is a problem that is gonna be resolved by regulators and bureaucrats. This is a problem that’s gonna be solved by engineers, innovators, and entrepreneurs.” Bullshit.
People who advocate for NFTs, crypto, and web3 because they believe it holds the possibility of a decentralized web tend to ignore that technology alone isn’t going to change the path of tech’s development toward commercialization and concentration.
That argument is little more than an extension of the techno-determinism that formed a key part of the Californian Ideology and misidentified how change occurs by downplaying the importance of politics in favor of technology and the market.
Until you challenge the political economy that shapes tech’s development, it’s going to be difficult to have any notable alternative that diverges from the path that serves capital. That’s why the response needs to be political, not just technological.
This thread about Web 3 is a load of naive bullshit, but this is the key point.
Web 3 will not decentralize the web as its adherents say. Web 2.0 centralized the web to extract profit from it; Web 3 is about commercializing more digital activities to do the same.
Web 3 is not about empowering creators, builders, or any of the nice PR speak being deployed. It’s about making a way to monetize more of what happens online for the benefit of new and existing internet companies that will seek to monopolize these new markets.
I wrote a bit about Web 3 this piece for @_reallifemag back in July.
“Web3 is a technological solution that does not contend with how power is distributed in the real world.” reallifemag.com/reconnected/
I’m rereading Hubert Horan’s “Can Uber Ever Deliver?” series in its entirety, and it’s just so good. Absolutely nails the problems with Uber’s business model and why the arguments it makes (that media often repeats uncritically) are complete lies.
“Uber not only lacks the major cost advantage [over incumbents] … but actually has higher costs than traditional car service operators in every category, except for fuel and fees where no operator can achieve a cost advantage.” nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-ub…
“Highlighting the app also implies that Uber is a ‘technology company’ that has completely ‘disrupted’ industry economics, and is not simply a traditional company like Domino’s Pizza that is utilizing smartphone ordering.” nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-ub…
Oxford University was going to open source its vaccine, then the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stepped in and convinced them to sell exclusive rights to AstraZeneca.
Now AstraZeneca is failing to deliver and poor countries are struggling to access vaccines.
It’s important to remember that Gates has used his foundation to launder his reputation, but there are a lot of serious questions about its activities, including supporting strong IP rights for drugs that make them less accessible to poor countries. thenation.com/article/societ…
You can read the full article about Oxford reversing course and selling its vaccine’s rights to AstraZeneca (at the encouragement of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) here: khn.org/news/rather-th…
I like Wolff, but I disagree with this comparison. Electoral systems in the countries he’s referring to are way different and make it possible for there to be more than two parties.
In the US, elections are undemocratically controlled by Dems & GOP to ensure that doesn’t happen.
That isn’t to say I think US left politics needs to take place within the Democratic Party, or that it’s a good vehicle to realize left-wing demands. But I don’t think the example of European left parties carries over to the US, especially federally.
There are way more roadblocks to any kind of third-party strategy in the US than there are in European democracies, and that limits the possibility of success when taking that route. US left needs to find an effective way to exert its power, but I’m not sure third party is it.