Thread

1. jimbo456 · 1790253899 · focus · HN ↗

   We need to move beyond just banning these glasses - all smart glasses of all kinds - to breaking up these companies. Undo the acquisitions of Insta and Whatsapp - I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.

   1. howunfortunate · 1790257706 · focus · HN ↗

      > I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.

      "I have no empathy for the two-thirds of Americans who will lose their personal savings that they need to retire" really undermines your case.

      Edit: thoughtful tradeoffs against the stock market are reasonable. "I don't care" is not a carefully weighed tradeoff

      1. Saline9515 · 1790257920 · focus · HN ↗

         This line of argument ("think of the retirees!!!") could be used in many cases, however when is it acceptable to break companies for the greater (non-financial) good?

         On a parallel, can't we criticize any decision reducing the market cap of companies as an attack on the retirement portfolios? Say, if we required connected glasses to display a red light of more than x lumens when recording, would that be ok, even if it decreased Meta's market cap?

         1. howunfortunate · 1790258523 · focus · HN ↗

            > decision reducing the market cap of companies as an attack on the retirement portfolios

            Any decision that results in a long term net loss across the entire public economy? Yes.

            That's something that hurts a lot of people and that hurt should be carefully weighed against whatever the assumed benefit is. Sometimes that's worth it, sometimes it's not

            But it's never OK to just hand wave with "well I don't care about that class of people so screw them"

            And let's not move the goalposts. OPs proposal was a corporate breakup of massive scale, not a minimum lumens requirement.

            1. Saline9515 · 1790259097 · focus · HN ↗

               I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't, I would like to know the line of demarcation. Splitting Meta would have a very low effect on the economy as the services are individually profitable and would continue to be operated, without the all-knowing centralized database/24h Telescreen.

               At some point, similar to the camera/face recognition debate, it's about a choice of society that we want to live in. I think that's an interesting debate.

               1. howunfortunate · 1790261662 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Splitting Meta would have a very low effect on the economy

                  That's...I'm not even sure how to respond to that. It would have a large direct and MASSIVE indirect chilling effect. The scale would be historic.

                  > it's about a choice of society that we want to live in. I think that's an interesting debate.

                  I fully agree with you! OP apparently doesn't, as he stated he does not care about half of the voices in that debate. That's what I'm taking issue with, not the proposal to break up Meta, which is, as you said, worth a debate!

                  1. Supermancho · 1790263559 · focus · HN ↗

                     > It would have a large direct and MASSIVE indirect chilling effect.

                     Like it did with Ma Bell (the effective telephone monopoly)? No. I'm pretty sure it would have the direct opposite (open frontier) effect. The direct steps to break up a company are well telegraphed to the market.

                  2. Saline9515 · 1790343271 · focus · HN ↗

                     Meta has at the moment also a massive direct effect as it is a monopoly on its advertising segment.

                     The effect on economy I'm talking about is a functional one, ads and slop will continue to be served on your social network of choice. Second order like "bad vibes" will be forgotten in a month, a quarter at max and then hedge fund managers will move to something else.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.