Muda69

3 Reasons Why Facebook's Zuckerberg Wants More Government Regulation: https://mises.org/wire/3-reasons-why-facebooks-zuckerberg-wants-more-government-regulation But what sort of regulation will this be? Specifically, Zuckerberg concludes "we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability." He wants more countries to adopt versions of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. Needless to say, anyone hearing such words from Zuckerberg should immediately assume this newfound support for regulation is calculated to help Facebook financially. After all, this is a man who lied repeatedly to his customers (and Congress) about who can access users' personal data, and how it will be used. He's a man who once referred to Facebook users as "Dumb F-cks." Facebook lied to customers (not be confused with the users) about the success of Facebook's video platform. The idea that Zuckerberg now voluntarily wants to sacrifice some of his own power and money for humanitarian purposes is, at best, highly doubtful. (Although politicians like Mark Warner seem to take it at face value.) Fortunately for Zuckerberg, thanks to the economic realities of government regulation, he can both support government regulation and enrich himself personally. Those who are familiar with the effects of government regulation will not be surprised to hear a billionaire CEO throw his support behind it. Large firms with dominant market share have long made pace with government regulation because it often helps these firms create and solidify monopoly power for themselves. Specifically, there are three ways that regulation will help Facebook. One: Regulations Will Give Facebook More Monopoly Power Many Facebook critics like to claim that Facebook is a natural monopoly. That is, they think Facebook is so dominant in the marketplace, that it can use its supposed market power to keep out competitors. We're told that Facebook has so many users, no serious competition will ever be possible. But remember MySpace? People used to say exactly the same thing that that social media platform. A recently as 2007, The Guardian was asking "Will Myspace ever lose its monopoly?" Xerox corporation was once a tech powerhouse, as well. It has now all but disappeared. Obviously, the answer to the Guardian's question is "yes." But we're now hearing about how Facebook is a monopoly. The reality, however, is that unless governments artificially erects barriers to entry, no firm can expect a safe place as a dominant firm. Other firms with new ideas will come along, threatening the older firm's dominance. The answer to this problem, from the point of view of a firm like Facebook, is to make things for expensive and difficult for smaller startups and potential competitors. Facebook knows that if government regulations of tech firms increase, the cost of doing business will increase. Larger firms will be able to deal with these additional costs more easily than smaller start ups. Big firms can access financing more easily. They have more equity. They already have sizable market share and can afford to be more conservative. Large firms can absorb high labor costs, higher legal costs, and the higher fixed costs brought on by regulation. A high-regulation environment is an anti startup, anti-entrepreneurial environment. Two: Zuckerberg and Facebook Will Help Write the New Rules In an earlier age, many might have taken Zuckerberg's new proclamation as sincere. Fortunately, we live in a cynical age, and even a beat reporter at Mashable knows how this game is played. Mashable's Karissa Bell writes: Part of the reason Zuckerberg has made peace with the idea of government regulation is the knowledge that Facebook will be one of the most powerful groups at the negotiating table when it comes to write the new regulations. In other words, Facebook will be in a position to make sure the new rules favor Facebook over its competitors. This is a common occurrence in regulatory schemes and is known as “regulatory capture.” When new regulatory bodies are created to regulate firms like Facebook and other dominant firms, the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors. Moreover, as economist Douglass North noted, regulatory regimes do not improve efficiency, but serve the interests of those with political power: "Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules." After all, how much incentive does the average person have in monitoring new regulations, staying in touch with regulators, and attempting to affect the regulatory process? The incentive is almost zero. The incentive for regulated firms, on the other hand, is quite large. Not only will a small start up lack the resources and political pull to challenge Facebook in the rule-making sphere, but those small firms won't be be large enough to be considered important "stakeholders" on any level. Thus, Facebook will continue to wield more power than its smaller competitors through its regulatory power. Three: It Will Limit Facebook's Legal Exposure Another big benefit of regulation for Facebook will be the potential for using government regulation to limit Facebook's legal liability when things go wrong. Bell continues: Put another way, Facebook can protect itself form both the legal and public-relations repercussions to itself when it uses its platform to delete the posts and visibility of users with whom Facebook employees disagree. As FTC commissioner Brendan Carr put it, Facebook's proposed regulatory agenda would allow it to "outsource[e] censorship." Not only would this put the federal government in a position to be directly determining which opinions and ideas ought to be eliminated from tech platforms, it would also allow Facebook to pretend to be an innocent third party: "Don't blame us for deleting your posts," Facebook could then say. "The government made us do it!" Moreover, regulation can be employed by firms like Facebook to shield the firm from lawsuits. Potentially, in the marketplace, Facebook could be sued for using its platform to endanger domestic abuse victims, or victims of suicide. Whether or not the firm should be found guilty of such things would be complex legal questions decided on a case-by case-basis. However, regulation can be used to circumvent this process entirely, and serve the interests of large, abusive firms. This phenomenon was explained by Murray Rothbard in the context of building regulations: Let's apply this to the tech industry: Firm A is a new startup which has developed a way to make money in a way that satisfies consumers, and does not expose them to any unwanted harassment, de-platforming, or violations of privacy. Meanwhile, Facebook (Firm B) continues to use its dominance in the regulatory process to keep in place costly regulations that prevent new startups from making much headway. These same regulations, however, continue to allow privacy violations, and other abuses up to a certain thresholdestablished in by regulators. Thus, the outcome is this: Firm A is unable to deploy its new, inventive, non-abusive model at all because regulatory costs are too high. Meanwhile, Facebook can continue to endanger and abuse some users because regulations allow it. Moreover, Facebook enjoys greater immunity form lawsuits because it complies with regulations.Thus consumers are denied both the benefits of the new startup and legal remedies from suing Facebook for its continued abuse. In short, Zuckerberg's pro-regulation position is just a pro-Zuckerberg position. By further politicizing and regulating the internet, policymakers will assist large firms — and their billionaire owners — in crushing the competition, and ensuring the public has fewer choices.

http://reason.com/blog/2019/04/01/12-year-old-michigan-boy-is-filling-poth#comment Michigan, meanwhile, has the worst roads in the United States, according to a study released in October. The state and local governments there have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of filling potholes on a timely basis. While Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) may have campaigned on a promise to "fix the damn roads," it sure looks like a 12 year old is actually getting real results. I live in Michigan for most of the the 1990's, and the roads were pretty bad then. Stories of flat tires, broken rims, bent axles, etc. due to potholes were not uncommon. It appears nothing has really changed. Kudos young Mr. Scott for his initiative. Unfortunately if he wasn't 12 and this wasn't such a "feel good" story he would probably be arrested/fined for his actions.

http://reason.com/archives/2019/04/02/stuff-sparks-joy Yep. Government wants to grow, to control every aspect of our lives. It wants to tell us what we can buy, when we can buy it, and how much we will pay for it.

To help with with NightHawk's righteous indignation/rage at taxpayer money not being used to fund Special Olympics, Inc.: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/special-olympics-budget-controversy-behind-the-numbers-at-nonprofit-group/ I'm sure that 10% could have easily been covered by the generosity of the private sector, why hasn't NightHawk mailed a check himself? And why does government have to be involved in this organization at all?

So it makes sense, in regards to fighting global warming, to compel counties with population densities under a certain threshold to allow the construction of industrial wind farms? *yawn* Didn't you and I have a similar discussion about this in a different thread not to long ago? You trotted out statistics about wind speed averages.

Tell us NightHawk, why can't the private sector fund an activity of such great value as the Special Olympics? If it costs such a paltry sum why are you not volunteering to pitch in? #NightHawk 2020 ~ government spending is automatically the answer to ALL altruistic endeavors, the private sector just sucks.

https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/03/26/college-students-arent-learning-much-as-taxpayer-subsidies-rise/ Colleges have spent much of the increased tuition they now charge students on vast armies of college bureaucrats and administrators. Professors have benefited far less. By 2011, there were already more college administrators than faculty at California State University. The University of California, which claimed to have cut administrative spending “to the bone,” was busy creating new positions for politically-correct bureaucrats even as it raised student fees and tuition to record levels. As the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald noted in 2011: Some colleges have raised spending on administrators by more than 600% in recent years. "Free" government money absolutely corrupts, and corrupts absolutely.

But what do you do about the NIMBY syndrome towards wind farms at the county level? Tippecanoe, Hamilton, and to an extent Clinton have all told wind power companies to basically take a hike and don't come back. And those are the counties I am aware of. I'm sure there are more.

I haven't encountered anyone at the national level in the past 30 years with a uni-party designation that I believed deserved my vote. When that person comes along I'll let you know.

Yep, more evidence to vote for a third party candidate instead of the uni-party. Or not vote at all.

How about reducing the overall power and scope of the federal government?

Electoral College: Why We Must Decentralize Democracy: https://mises.org/wire/electoral-college-why-we-must-decentralize-democracy To assume, however, that the same situation is achievable at the scale of the French republic with nearly 30 million is a blunder of impressive size. The reasons for this are well explained by Acton: Thus, Acton understood the protection of freedom lies in division, decentralization, and the liberation of minorities. For Rousseau, however, his latent federalism was no match for the idea of a national will of the people. Any idea of Swiss-style federalism collapsed under the fervor for a single national legislature that could impose the wishes of all the "French nation" to every corner of the Republic's jurisdiction. After all, why divide up the democratic mass if "the people" as a whole are never wrong? "Rousseau's most advanced point was the doctrine that the people are infallible," Acton wrote. "Jurieu had taught that they can do no wrong: Rousseau added that they are positively in the right." Unfortunately, this ideal has never lost its appeal to many, and it continues to plague American politics with the idea that a "will of the people" can be realized in large scale elections across populations of tens of millions. After all, the abandonment of locally-based democracy is not just a problem at the federal level. The state of California today has more people than all of France during the revolution. New York, Texas, and Florida are not far behind. All of these states are controlled by unitary governments lacking provisions that temper democracy and protect minorities. Such a state of affairs would be unrecognizable to the Americans of the nineteenth century. By their standards, the US has become a country of mega-states, mass democracy, and enormous republics that Rousseau might have looked on with approval. On the other hand, the best solution lies in a peaceful embrace of division, secession, decentralization, and disunity. Unfortunately, the electoral college controversy suggests the US is moving in exactly the opposite direction. As a result, division and disunity will still likely come, but in a much more violent way than what might have been.

Democratic Dystopias: http://reason.com/archives/2019/03/29/democratic-dystopias But the Democratic side of the uni-party won't resist the temptation. If you can't beat 'em then join 'em.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2018/04/11/mark-zuckerberg-vs-silicon-valleys-richa Agreed. But of course smart tycoons like Mr. Zuckerberg will use government regulations to protect itself from competition., which I'm sure is what all the supporters of government regulation really support.

*yawn*, nice try at hyperbole. You really believe this is what will happen with taxpayer money not funding Special Olympics, NightHawk? And it looks like Mr. Trump is now your hero, right? hhttps://www.apnews.com/9e4bf2732b0744a98192c923ac19f38e I guess there is nothing altruistic the private sector can do anymore on it's own, it all has to be funded on the back of taxpayers.

On an actual topic concerning Mr. Trump: As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston: https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/25/as_mueller_finds_no_collusion_did An interesting exchange between Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Johnston.

Currently how are such laws enforced? Does a complaint have to be filed by an individual who believe they were discriminated against due to their race/sex/religion? https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/aa/420483/ Private businesses valuing diversity in their workforces doesn't bother me, Wabash. I have said as much in previous posts. What bothers me are the laws that basically mandate it.

No, because exactly what personal trait did Bob exhibit which was the catalyst for a discriminatory act? Unluckiness in coin flips? Can that be scientifically and objectively be observed and measured? So how can the hypothetical white guy train for or gain via experience this positive attribute of "diversity" that the other candidate seems to have, seemingly only through the accident of birth? And I thought that racial discrimination can go both ways, but systemic racism can only flow from the majority race to the minority race? I fail to see the practical, real world difference in your bold statement. I have no inherent issue with diversity in the work place. If candidate A has superior qualifications over candidate B and also happens to be a member of a racial minority, more power to them. It is the fact that we can have hiring decisions apparently being made due solely on race or gender due to government fiat. I agree that a diverse workforce can bring certain advantages, but private employers should be free to make such decisions as they see fit without the specter of government intervention hanging over their heads.

So the white male candidate is being discriminated against because he can't bring "diversity" to the workforce. Got it. And because this "diversity" is mandated by law we once again have government picking the winners and losers. Frankly I would prefer an actual coin toss in order to choose the candidate in this scenario rather than government fiat.

Pete Buttigieg: Tortured Libertarian: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/pete-buttigieg-tortured-libertarian/

What a sad story. Unfortunately these men may never be able to adjust to life back on the outside. "Forty years I been asking permission to piss. I can't squeeze a drop without say-so." - Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding

Oh yes, due to this individual's race and gender she was a big "plus" to the diversity metrics of Bank "A+B". So if she was up against an equally qualified white married male from Bank "B" for the same position who do you think Bank "A+B" would choose?

So what you are saying in your lawyer-like speak is that there isn't current legislation which requires private companies to interview a certain percentage of racial minority individuals for an open position. And for the record I would be considered a member of a racial and gender minority in the department/group I currently work in. As an aside this current conversation reminds me of a incident back when I was working at my first job out of college. I had been working at a Detroit area bank, call it bank "A" for about three years when said bank "merged" with another larger Detroit area bank, call it bank "B". Current employees of bank "A" had the option to basically re-interview for their current position if they still wanted a job with the new bank "A+B". After this interview process was explained to us a co-worker said to me "They will have to take me, regardless of how I interview, because I'm black, I'm a women, and I'm a single parent." Yay for affirmative action and the entitlement mindset it can create.