Yes, given the decades worth of damages it has caused by being an inferior quality software product (no quality control) and the anti-competitive tactics used to ensure that consumers could not choose a higher quality alternative. Unfortunately, this petition is concerned with something else.
Direct to consumer TV ads for pharmaceuticals were illegal in 1981. This did not change until 1997. As I remember it, in the few years after 1997 there were still relatively few drug ads on TV. It was nothing like today. It seems like the number of ads has dramatically increased in more recent times I would guess because many large pharmaceutical companies lack the pipelines they had in the 1990's and are under more pressure to increase sales on existing drugs.
> It seems like the number of ads has dramatically increased in more recent times
Don't neglect to account that it may be that as you grow older, you are more likely to encounter these types of ads because the drug companies target older consumers as they are more likely to need the product.
I only meant TV ads. As for trying to guess about me, I watch almost no TV in recent times, though I did watch it back in the 80's and 90's. I am basing this opinion on only small periodic encounters with recent TV, random samples. I do not see internet advertising because I use a text-only browser except when doing commercial transactions. In any event, I use local DNS, no third-party "upstream" DNS provider. I never see ads. Away from home, I generally do not access the internet from mobile phones. It is a reasonable guess, though. No doubt Americans are being targeted by advertising like never before.
I was actually thinking specifically about TV ads. For example, drug companies advertise heavily during the evening news. Cereal companies advertise heavily during cartoons. It's always been this way.
What if more users install the browser extension/add-on that automatically changes the user-agent string based on domain name, e.g., for Instagram it changes to a random mobile user-agent. Sorry I forgot the name of the extension.
"This data has never been, would never be, and will never be sold/rented/etc. to advertisers."
"Stripe.js collects this data only for fraud prevention -- it helps us detect bots who try to defraud businesses that use Stripe."
The language of the revised ToS could go something like "Stripe shall only use the data for fraud prevention. Stripe shall not permit the data to be used for any other purpose, inlcuding, without limitation, any use that aims to increase customer acquisition or sales of products or services."
The problem with statements like "We only use the data for X" is that this is not a limitation. It is perhaps a representation of what Stripe is doing as of the date of the ToS, however it does not mean Stripe does not have permission to use the data for any other purpose. Further, it only applies to Stripe. Another party could be using the data for some other purpose besides fraud prevention and the statement would still be true. Nothing requires that there be a sale or "rental" for another party to make use of the data.
The problem with statements like "We will never sell/rent/etc. the data to Y" is that it does not prevent Stripe from using the data to help Stripe or other parties to sell products and services. Stripe does not need to sell or rent the data to provide that assistance.
To recap, a ToS should limit how the data can be used. Stating how a company currently uses the data is not a limitation. Stating that a company will not sell or rent the data does not necessarily limit how the data can be used by that company or anyone else.
Facebook does not sell or rent data but their collection of data ultimately results in more advertising on the web, and on Facebook-owned websites. How does that happen. The first problem is the collection of data above and beyond what is needed to fulfill a user's request, i.e., the purpose for which it was collected. Ideally we could stop the unnecessary collection of user data, e.g., through law and regulation, and this would reduce the amount of data we need to worry about. The second problem is that after users "agree" to the collection of data, there are no contractual obligations on the collector over how the data can be used, other than not sharing it.
"I'm in the process of reading the book _Why Nation Fails_. The central thesis is that rich and poor countries are separated by inclusive vs extractive institutions.
It seems to resonate a bit here, when Marc speaks of things like regulatory capture."
However if we actually look at the pages of that book from 2012, the authors never use the US, or any present day "Western" country, as an example of one that had or has extractive instutitions. Instead they cite examples such as Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Angola, Sudan, Chad, Cameroon, Liberia, Egypt, North Korea, Nepal, or Haiti.
According to the authors, the US currently has inclusive institutions and uses the example of the software industry as a success story to support this argument. This industry is in fact the blog post author's area of focus as a former programmer turned venture capitalist.
To quote from the book:
(Note the bit about fraud. The US had serious problems with fraud 100 years ago, and still does. Consider that is why the SEC exists. Many would argue it has very limited powers of enforcement to deal with modern-day fraud.)
"Bill Gates, like other legendary figures in the information technology industry (such as Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Jeff Bezos), had immense talent and ambition. But he ultimately responded to incentives. The schooling system in the United States enabled Gates and others like him to acquire a unique set of skills to complement their talents. The economic institutions in the United States enabled these men to start companies with ease, without facing insurmountable barriers. Those institutions also made the financing of their projects feasible. The U.S. labor markets enabled them to hire qualified personnel, and the relatively competitive market environment enabled them to expand their companies and market their products. These entrepreneurs were confident from the beginning that their dream projects could be implemented: they trusted the institutions and the rule of law that these generated and they did not worry about the security of their property rights. Finally, the political institutions ensured stability and continuity. For one thing, they made sure that there was no risk of a dictator taking power and changing the rules of the game, expropriating their wealth, imprisoning them, or threatening their lives and livelihoods. They also made sure that no particular interest in society could warp the government in an economically disastrous direction, because political power was both limited and distributed sufficiently broadly that a set of economic institutions that created the incentives for prosperity could emerge. Secure property rights, the law, public services, and the freedom to contract and exchange all rely on the state, the institution with the coercive capacity to impose order, prevent theft and fraud, and enforce contracts between private parties. To function well, society also needs other public services: roads and a transport network so that goods can be transported; a public infrastructure so that economic activity can flourish; and some type of basic regulation to prevent fraud and malfeasance.
Though many of these public services can be provided by markets and private citizens, the degree of coordination necessary to do so on a large scale often eludes all but a central authority. The state is thus inexorably intertwined with economic institutions, as the enforcer of law and order, private property, and contracts, and often as a key provider of public services. Inclusive economic institutions need and use the state."
The US approach to business does have its flaws. However the book "Why Nations Fail" does not address them. To the authors, the US is a nation that "succeeded", and continues to succeed, by having inclusive institutions, not one that "failed" or is failing today.
A book like "Why Nations Fail", and there are many others like it, arguably encourages readers to view the US, irrespective of its flaws, as the shining example of what a country could/should aspire to become. There are no present-day comparisons of the US with Western Europe in books of this type. Such books are arguably part of the reason for certain institutional problems that will forever remain unfixed in the US, e.g. regulatory capture and complexity, because books like these have themes that support the idea that America's "solutions" are not just different but better than all the others.
This book really has no relation to any criticism of US institutions. If anything, it supports the idea that the US has the best formula for creating a rich country, i.e., a country where "anyone can be rich". They compare how Bill Gates became wealthy versus how Carlos Slim became wealthy.
Main Concepts Inclusive and Extractive Institutions
Towards a Theory of Institutions
Extractive economic institutions: Lack of law and order. Insecure property rights; entry barriers and regulations preventing functioning of markets and creating a nonlevel playing field.
Extractive political institutions -- in the limit of absolutism: Political institutions concentrating power in the hands of a few, without constraints, checks and balances or rule of law.
Inclusive economic institutions: Secure property rights, law and order, markets and state support (public services and regulation) for markets; open to relatively free entry of new businesses; uphold contracts; access to education and opportunity for the great majority of citizens.
Inclusive political institutions: Political institutions allowing broad participation pluralism and placing constraints and checks on politicians; rule of law (closely related to pluralism).
But also some degree of political centralization for the states to be able to selectively enforce law and order.
Because they have extractive political and economic institutions.
These are difficult to change though they can be successfully challenged and altered during critical junctures.
The roots of modern world inequality lie in the emergence of inclusive institutions in Britain and the fruits of this - the industrial revolution - spread to those parts of the world that had similar institutions (settler colonies) or quickly developed them (Western Europe).
Other parts of the world languished with extractive institutions which have persisted over time and thus remain poor today.
As I read the parent comment, the point is not that Andreesen could singlehandedly make a difference with his investments. The point is that his words do not match his actions. His work is fostering an industry whose competitive advantage is not having to build anything tangible for the public's benefit and, in the case of companies like Facebook, not having to pay taxes on their profits.
I always get a bit conflicted with Marc Andreessen stuff.
Like this article starts out with a bold claim that's...wrong.
Germany have done well. A western country has done well. Elephant in the room, massive 80 million person country, major western power, and the American claims no-one's done a good job because the US hasn't.
And then he goes into talking about having pre-prepared therapies or a vaccine. Again, we already have to an extent. You can't make a vaccine before the virus exists, but you can have a way of rapidly making one. We do have pre-prepared vaccines, like this one:
Perhaps the medical system works better in Germany than in the U.S., but the rest of the article's points stand:
- Rents are sky high, and the landowners and people in power have no intention of changing that. In fact, they import more people at any opportunity in order to increase the size of the industrial reserve army and push up rents.
- Germany has no substantial capacity of manufacturing simple goods like masks.
- While Germany still has manufacturing, the middle and lower classes are exploited and relatively poor.
I think its a very big mistake to attempt to quantify quality of life with the numbers below but I could see how someone could try to make the case that Germany is relatively poor vs the USA:
Germans are taxed much higher than people in the US: A tax rate of 42% on income over 57K euros, vs 22% in the US (and the US bracket tops out at 37% for 500K USD). Gross national income is lower, 54K in Germany vs vs 63K for USA (though still quite good). Other sites peg Germany as 82% the purchasing power of the US, though less cost of living. Yet many durable goods are much more expensive in Germany. Cars are ~28% more expensive, gas is more expensive, electronics are more expensive: iPad in the US costs $800 vs $950 in Germany. Utilities are 56% more expensive in Germany, clothing 40% more expensive.
I also thought this as well reading the introduction. Canada has less than 1/2 the number of cases and deaths on a per capita basis than the US so they are doing twice as well as the US in handling this.
Fine up until the last cheap shot. None of those conflicts were wanted or started by the US. Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Taliban enabled 9/11, Assad provoked a civil war in Syria.
Disengaging always makes things worse. After the ‘Surge’ in Iraq the US tried to pull out and what happened? ISIS. The US pulled out of north Syria and our (talking broadly, I’m a Brit) allies the Kurds got massacred and thousands of ISIS prisoners got loose again. Walking away doesn’t work, we tried that with Afghanistan, just leaving it to the Taliban after the Soviets pulled out, and they came after us in New York anyway. It’s a small world whether we like it or not, and we’re in it together.
The author is a VC who almost exclusively funds software-based businesses where "build" generally refers to intangibles and businesses based on intangibles. He refers to Western/American effectiveness ("we") in building computers, including smartphones. His famous quote, displayed prominently on his website, is "Software is eating the world."
However, strangely, this post from him calls for building tangible assets, not software. Perhaps some of the funding directed at software can now be directed to businesses whose primary assets are tangible. What do you think.
Consider all the money and willingness to invest that has been directed toward software-based businesses. What if more of that investment capital had gone to non-software-based endeavours that America chose not to build while Silicon Valley VC like Andreeson Horowitz were busy directing focus to software.
It seems to me that his firm could be complicit in a general unwillingness in America to build tangible things. If I was someone following his philosophies over the past few decades, I would be less inclined to invest, or promote investment, in the types of "traditional" business required to build the things he calls for in this post.
I have thought about this for decades. Using web-based HTML forms for transmitting information, whether e-commerce or otherwise, is often overkill. There should be a standardised format for consumers to send basic plain text information such as name, address, etc. over the internet. In many cases using a website to submit such basic information, where every website potentially collects information differently, creates more work for everyone. It is mind-biggling to think of how many people have struggled with brittle web forms and how much time and energy they have wasted. It is sad to think that probably very few of them have ever thought "There must be a better way."
