Technology

59429 readers

3193 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

309

We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by drd@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With Google's recent monopoly status being a topic a discussion recently. This article from 2017 argues that we should nationalize these platforms in the age of platform capitalism. Ahead of its time, in fact the author predicted the downfall of Ello.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Ahem, No. We need something better. And nations should respect their citizens' privacy and digital security. Not exploit it. 99% of any of those companies is about harvesting people's personal data and show them ads. We need the other 1%: offer some useful services. Nationalize Free and Open Source Software, Proton, Nextcloud and healthy social media platforms. Not Facebook and Google!

I think since we're living in capitalism, what we should do is force some competition. Make them interconnect and open up so the people can choose which company to use. Like with E-Mail or federated services. That should apply to instant messengers and social media.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Best would be if they nationalized these systems and then migrated them to their FOSS alternatives over time.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'd say that's overly expensive and complex. Since almost everything with these companies is about the ad selling, harvesting and using the data and tieing the users attention. The state would adopt something that is mostly concerned with that. And they'd struggle with their role influencing political views with the algorithms that now belog to them. And it'd be pretty much an Orwellian dystopia once the state starts getting into the advertisement business. What we consider a "product", the social media platform or mail service is just a means to have users. It's a tiny fraction of what these companies do. And it's an expense to them, not what they make money with.

I think it's far easier and quicker to start fresh. Have something that has good features baked in from the start. And not adapt a business, settle >90% of what it's about and change the product 180 degrees so it's about something entirely different. I mean everything Google programms is with the idea in mind to sell ads. They'd need to change pretty much everything about that program code. And we already have some good alternatives to some things. And the EU for example already funds some Free Software. I think if we were to educate people, regulate online services in a good way and offer proper alternatives, the rest follows automatically. IMO nationalising an ad selling business comes with severe issues, as I lined out earlier. And if we did it over, we could also learn from the past and address issues like filter bubbles, unhealthy behaviour, being overly addictive and whatever is baked in to the current generation of social media and almost impossible to get rid of.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They wouldn't need to run the ad business. Downsize and replace it with taxpayer dollars.

The reason to nationalize something existing in these spheres rather than build something new is because the network effects of these platforms make it near impossible for something competing to get a foothold. And if anyone could fail to compete against big tech, no one could fail better than the government.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm still unsure. That's certainly a possibility and something that happens in the actual world... Buy a company just for the userbase and throw out everything it consists of. Except for a really tiny portion of the software assets and a few hundred employees. And the database with the user accounts. It'd be super hard to keep the users, though. As they're then on a platform that's not anymore what they originally signed up for. If it doesn't go smoothly, they'll go someplace else and everything was in vain. Maybe prohibit other private companies from offering competing online services. Or it has to be perfect and stay like that indefinitely.

And I mean the network effect is there. But it can be overcome. Or we'd still use MySpace, ICQ, Facebook, Friendster... I've changed instant messenger services like 4 times in my life. Similar for social media platforms and pretty much everything. Just my email is still with the same company.

I'm not entirely sure if that still holds true because companies like Meta and Google are so big these days. But as one example I'd like to mention TikTok which was able to attract like all the young people and get them away from Google and Meta's grip. And they were able to do that by competing and offering a better(?) service. And it's pretty much ran by a government. So I'd say it can be done that way. You just need a good product and a lot of money.

But eventually, yeah we should all end up on FOSS services that aren't paid for in private data.