Network effects provide natural economies of scale. These economies are the primary good of civilization. The problem arises when the cost of delivering this good is measured in collapsing birth rates that those receiving the good (ie: monopolists) are insulated from by this very good – rendering them unable to understand that they are, themselves, under threat of extermination in a backlash by the young men they are unintentionally destroying or enslaving.
The social good of antitrust is best accomplished by replacing regulatory measures with the direct delivery of social goods by a citizen’s dividend paid for out of a tax on market capitalization assessed as nondistressed liquidation. Said assessment by the market then results in transfer of the network ownership to the most capable, and consumers have money in their pocket to pay the monopolists’ premium prices.
Really. Just because Google has more market share than Standard Oil had and has purchased 1500 companies doesn’t mean they are monopolistic. Wink Wink.
Hey, I gotta idea: Get people to stop using college libraries where they can look up dangerous knowledge by putting everything online with a network effect monopoly on search engines supported by government malfeasance not enforcing antitrust and then quietly move the books to some “archive” people can’t get to. That way you can track whenever anyone tries to look up dangerous knowledge through the government sanctioned monopoly. Hire some “libertarians” to say “it’s not a monopoly… network effects are a Marxist fallacy…” etc. Then, once you’ve got everything online, distill everything down into a winner-take-all “foundation model” that no one has direct access to except, of course, people who only have our safety in mind, and then mop up the nasties that were doing dangerous search engine queries while gradually replacing search results with ads and other innocuous hits. With all knowledge safely centralized we can rest assured that only The Best People will have access to dangerous knowledge because, as we all know from “A Beautiful Mind”, defectors never win!
PS: Going after a search engine company for monopolistic practices now reminds me of the way legacy media was basically burned to the ground against Trump knowing full well that the big battle was in social media. Now it is the AI systems. In any event the way to deal with monopolies is as I described before replacing taxes on activity with atax on liquidation value of net assets. Even though Elon musk would be far wealthier with that change in tax policy and Jeff bezos much poorer Elon musk won’t even consider it. I suspect his handlers have convinced him to go for the big one. Bad move
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Google Inc. employees took out their wallets and showed overwhelming support for the Democratic Party last year, according to a report Monday in USA Today.
A USA Today campaign finance analysis found that, of the company’s overall political contributions, 98 percent went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors.
As much as you can claim MSM is pro-Dem, Google tops anything out there in existence.
The online search company’s employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates during last year’s election campaign, which includes the White House race between Democrat John Kerry and the winning incumbent Republican, President Bush. The contributions were up from just $250 in 2000 when Google was a start-up, according to the paper.
The paper said that 53 percent of the broader tech industry’s $25.9 million went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign finance.
You’re right. Rather than going along with what I felt was a more accessible narrative, I should have more carefully composed my missive to describe my actual hypothesis about the reason network effect monopolies all go “woke”:
The huge steaming piles of network effect monopoly profits emit an oder that wafts around the globe attracting the most highly evolved rent-seekers who, like the face hugger in Alien, are exquisitely adapted to battering or slipping through any barriers to get at that sweet sweet reek. Since they are capable of penetrating such barriers, they don’t have to worry about destroying the society producing their nutrition because they can always battter or slip through the barriers set up by yet-to-be-destroyed human ecologies!
Google’s interview process was unusually broad and allowed anyone to veto a candidate - and this probably led to excluding (political) minority candidates - and to the culture becoming unattractive to these same minority candidates.
As much as they celebrated their interview process, their success was much less due to hiring and much more due to unfettered M&A where they scooped all other tech companies that could challenge them.
In the end, it’s like @jabowery says - unchecked power attracts those in pursuit of power.
From Brave ai…
Google’s iconic motto “Don’t Be Evil” has undergone significant changes since its inception. Initially, it was a guiding principle for the company’s founders, emphasizing the importance of doing good for the world, even if it meant forgoing short-term gains.
Early years (2000-2015): The phrase was part of Google’s corporate code of conduct, emphasizing the company’s commitment to unbiased access to information, user needs, and ethical behavior.
Alphabet reorganization (2015): When Google reorganized under Alphabet, the parent company adopted a slightly adjusted motto, “Do the Right Thing.” Google retained its original “Don’t Be Evil” language.
Recent developments (2018-present): Google removed the “Don’t Be Evil” clause from its code of conduct, effectively retiring the phrase. This change reflects the company’s shift in focus from its early ideals to a more data-driven approach.
Criticisms and Controversies
Some argue that Google’s actions, such as prioritizing ad revenue over user privacy and manipulating search results, contradict its original “Don’t Be Evil” ethos. Critics point to instances like:
Automated account deactivations without warning, affecting thousands of employees.
Alleged manipulation of search results to favor Google’s own services.
Collection and use of user data without explicit consent.
Current State
While Google still retains the “Don’t Be Evil” phrase in its code of conduct, its significance has diminished. The company’s focus has shifted towards data-driven decision-making, leading some to question whether the motto remains a guiding principle.
In summary, Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” motto has evolved from a core value to a relic of the company’s early days. The phrase’s significance has been diminished by the company’s recent actions and focus on data-driven dominance.
Grad “A” players hire grade “A” players and grade “B” players hire grade “C” players. If you permit a veto from anyone and you have any grade “B” players, you’re doomed.
The problem Google, and most large corporations have, is there are relatively few Grade A players. Eventually, you have to hire someone lesser. I suspect in modern corporate governance it is not feasible to put mechanisms in place so B and under stay away from hiring. If anything the act of keeping them away will attract them like moths.
(I also hypothesize a Grade AA player, that hires people who are better than them.).
This is certainly the problem. There are other things that I think contribute.
Human resources seems to eventually insert itself into the hiring process.
Corrective action is more important than the initial hire. There is no way to be 100% on hiring. When a company is doing very well, the pressure required to do hard things is not great enough to overcome the natural resistance to do hard things.
EEOC/DEI and lawsuits. The EEOC/DEI often causes demand to become much greater than supply. There aren’t enough A players to begin with and now you cut the pool size down 50 to 90%. This in combination with the fear of a lawsuit for discrimination makes it very hard to take corrective action on those that you did hire.
That got me in trouble when I hired Tom Etter. Ended my career in fact. There were about 1.2 billion grade D players to be imported to take over the nervous system of Western civilization (and all those sweet sweet monopoly profits) and I was getting in the way!!!
PS: I have no patience for guys from India who don’t openly admit this and take the lead in cleaning house just as I have no patience for “Jews” who don’t openly admit the cultural flaw that leads them to advocate open borders and clean house. You guys don’t do it and we’ll do it for you – and that is something that we’ll do without the intimate knowledge of how to discriminate virulent from nonvirulent aspects of your culture. This has had bad effects on everyone in the past. So just fucking do your dirty work, ok?
Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.
Our new research leaves little doubt about whether Google has the ability to control voters. In laboratory and online experiments conducted in the United States, we were able to boost the proportion of people who favored any candidate by between 37 and 63 percent after just one search session. The impact of viewing biased rankings repeatedly over a period of weeks or months would undoubtedly be larger.
Yes, that was a compelling documentary - chilling how all Epstein’s materials and entire Google account simply vanished with no recourse. Be careful where you store your important stuff! PM me if you want to know a secure place where you retain full rights over your digital stuff (I’m a shareholder).
