Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Incorrect. The distinction between he who makes money selling tech that displaces workers and he who buys it is central to my point. The consumer should be compelled to pay for the real value of the tech.

Maybe you want to re-read this sober? You get more value out of the tech you buy than you pay for it. The seller profits too. Win-win. You are describing every company that sells something for a profit.

Tech that lets me avoid XXXX in labor costs should not be sold to me at X. It should be sold at XX, perhaps XXX.

Why? That's how capitalism has worked for hundreds of years?

New tech is endlessly focusing on gobbling market share by racing to the basement on prices.

When marginal cost is zero, price can drop to marginal cost.

Google ads are pricey now. Why? Because Google grabbed a huge chunk of the market by selling ads much more cheaply for years. Once it had monopoly power in the area (it shares this with FB), it was free to raise rates.

(Don't like Google ad rates? Fuck off, says Google. And fuck off you will, because they are the only game in town.)

I am the last person you need to convince of Google's market power. But if your issue is monopoly, let's have an antitrust conversation. Burger and Adder will like that.

I only cite Lanier because he is the only person who has come up with a way to tax tech that isn't blunt and punitive.

And he's no insider name to drop. He's a best selling author who is widely known, so while we're talking about dropping things, drop the accusation I'm name dropping Lanier. And if you've not read his stuff, do so. A bit of edification might stanch your tendency to become petulant when confronted with an argument that bothers you or you don't fully grasp.

As I said, you are name-dropping Lanier to pretend, however briefly, to care. But you don't care.

Because tech companies have a quantum of information far more detailed and useful than other companies. I have no objection to taxing Nordstrom or Target for use of a customer's information, but is what they have all that useful? Target knows what TVs people buy, Nordstrom what awful corporate casual slacks a middle manager might wear. FB and Google know how much you make, your sexual preference, your health, your fears, your entire social scene. That's a data set of incalculable value they receive For Free.

They should have to pay for it.

Why? People freely give it to them.

Or, alternatively, rather than pay you for it, they should charge you to use their services. They're entitled to profit. Google is a fantastic search device. We should have to pay to use Google search.

Ahhh, but Google or FB would never want that. They don't want that modest margin. They want the insane margin they collect by selling your info to others. They want the massive ad revenue that comes from being able to tell a buyer of their marketing tools, "We can not only target exactly who'll want the stuff you're selling, but also create new markets for you by manipulating the people on our platforms to want what you're selling."

Now, of course, that's been the holy grail of advertising and marketing forever. Why not let Google and FB do that? Don Draper would have done it if he could! Edward Bernays did something like it for 50 years!

I think companies like Google and FB should be able to do that. But like Lanier, I believe they should have to pay for the data they acquire. And to the extent they cause people to lose jobs, they might perhaps have to pay it in taxes, to subsidize the safety net that subsidizes them.

No other company that "cause[s] people to lose jobs" is forced to subsidize a safety net. Henry Ford wasn't forced to subsidize buggy whip makers. We have government to do that.