[rglullis]

This is a false dichotomy that both pro-government and pro-corporate people fall into. Whether Apple or "Our Government", we shouldn't be giving this much power to institutions.

> But even so, what are we supposed to do?

Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings. Stop putting convenience above principles. Refuse to pay/subscribe/accept any terms that are clearly not in your best interest.

You don't need Big Government to do that. You don't even need to be part of a mobilized group. It's in your hands and every individual can choose for themselves. Let's take responsibility for our own actions and stop using the vices/failings of others to excuse ourselves to do the same.

[Hokusai]

> You don't need Big Government to do that.

Regulations are there tools that citizens have to reign in corporate behavior. 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations.

> Vote with your wallet.

Yes. And also vote with your ballots, one person one vote triumphs one dollar one vote if you want freedom.

[dimitrios1]

> 'Big government' is just a catch name for many anti regulation lobbying entities to remove power from citizens and acumulats it on corporations.

This is completely reductionist, and completely uninformed.

Banks, as an easy counter example to your worldview, don't have armies of third party regulators, corporate compliance staff, and auditors because they hate regulation. They love big government. It acts as a barrier to entry for them, because they already have the 10,000 person department ready to modify procedures and legal documents to comply with the next set of regulations while the little banks drown. Regulators frequently dine with top bank executives, but I can assure you they aren't dining with the citizenry or your local regional bank.

Every amount of extra regulation just increases tyranny. It makes the American dream more untenable. I want people to succeed and not rely on giant mega corporations for their well being and wealth generation. You can rightly claim that I'm an anti-regulation lobbying entity in this regard, if you wish.

[mrandish]

+1 for paying attention in Econ 101 (and posting a POV that's probably more controversial these days than it should be).

[webmobdev]

Strong banking regulations is necessary to ensure that people trust the banks, and the banks don't misuse the fund you deposit with them. The collapse of some banks in US and India due to lax oversight, greed and corruption, in the last 2 decades is strong proof of this.

[Hokusai]

> due to lax oversight

That is an important point. Not only realisations are needed, regulations need to be enforced if we expect the banking system to work.

[rglullis]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25330764

[the_other]

"Stop consuming... " isn't enough. You also have to do some of the work needed for the other side of "vote with your wallet". "Vote" for the system/product/method you wish to see. This might include building it yourself, using crowdfunding/micropayments for journalists/politicians/artists you trust/follow.

[rglullis]

Agreed. "Vote with your wallet" does not exclude the idea of being an investor or sponsor of better alternatives.

[jerf]

I would also add that nobody saying "vote with your wallet" necessarily means it to be the only action you take.

It's more a bare minimum. If you're inclined to moan about how awful something is, but you're still paying $5/month for it, it kinda bounds how awful it must be in practice. If it's that bad, stop paying them, as a bare minimum, not as an exclusive remedy.

(Exceptions for monopolies like local internet or other situation where there are considerations strongly forcing you into a particular contract. Some exception for oligarchic situations where everyone has the bad terms... but only some. If it didn't even exist 20 years ago, you don't "need" it.)

[AlexandrB]

> Vote with your wallet. Stop consuming whatever it is that comes with attached strings.

This is... impossible. Ignoring the amount of time I would sink into researching every eventuality for a given service (how do you find out what the unsubscribe flow is for a site before you subscribe to it?). Some "services" have their hooks in just about everything. Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet.

[shrimp_emoji]

>Good luck avoiding the likes of Google Analytics or ReCaptcha if you want to use the internet.

I avoid Google Analytics all the time. It's called NoScript. c: It actually has no effect on site functionality, either.

ReCaptcha's a different story though. :c

[rglullis]

This is quite a strawman.

It might be "impossible" to do everything at once, but there is nothing stopping you from taking steps in that direction, and the more people taking those steps with you the stronger the market forces will force the companies to provide the things that you do want.

Not signing up to the NYT is a choice. Not buying from Apple and all their locked down systems is a choice. Not signing up for any subscription service that has DRM is a choice. Having an ad-blocker to fight surveillance capitalism is a choice. Adopting and promoting alternatives to every "free" offering from Google is a choice, even if they are of inferior quality. Putting your money where your mouth is and supporting the development of better alternatives for whatever comes from FAANG is also a choice. If you are doing all of that, then maybe you will be entitled to complain. But I am sure you have a lot of veggies to eat before that.

[varispeed]

You stand no chance against multi billion big corporation that can own you. It's the level of influence needed that only government can attain. The trouble is our corruption laws are so weak, you can just call it lobbying and be on your way to money town. It must be a combination of voting with your wallet and making your local politicians aware of the issues you are facing. More people put pressure the more will get done. You know if people are not doing anything, then in their mind problem is not serious.

[webmobdev]

> we shouldn't be giving this much power to institutions.

In a democracy, the government derives power from us, the people. In a good and functioning democracy there exists other democratic institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them.

"Vote with your wallet" is a disingenuous argument were all the corporates work together like a cartel towards a particular business model that maximises profit for them to the detriment of us consumers. Regulations that bind all business to certain rules and standard also benefit the businesses as it creates a level playing field for them too. (But obviously large corporates at the top don't want a level playing field).

[int_19h]

> In a good and functioning democracy there exists other democratic institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them.

This is kinda recursive - a "good and functioning" democracy is the one in which such institutions exist, so one where they don't is not a "good" one - but they are no less real for that. Worse yet, a "good" one can turn into other kinds - and the more centralized its governance, the more powerful it is, the faster that can happen.

[rglullis]

> In a good and functioning democracy (...) institutions to ensure that the government cannot abuse the powers granted to them.

This is the idealistic view. In the real world we have people in power, with their own personal interests, with institutions that are ever more distant from the people and with ever less consequences to face when they do wrong.

The one exception is perhaps Switzerland, and this would be more due to how local governments and cantons prevail over national leaders. The institutions are small and limited in reach. Aside from them, every model (US, the EU, China, Russian) relies on over-centralization and ever-expanding reach of the institutions and the consequential subversion of said institutions to the favor of interest groups.

So, unless you are Swiss I really don't have any reason to believe you actually have any power over the government, and I really don't believe you should be defending to give them even more power and attributions.

> maximises profit to the detriment of consumers

Last I checked, no one forced me to buy anything from Apple. I don't think closed systems are beneficial for me, so I don't buy them. No one forced me to buy anything from Google, either. No one forced me to buy a car or to live in an expensive metro area or even check any trendy bar with overpriced drinks. No one forced me to buy home appliances that can I not repair.

"Well, where I live there is only one internet provider, so I am forced to use it". No, you are not. It's just that the inconvenience of not having internet at home outweighs your willingness to get your community and put together an alternative. Also, more likely than not, the reason that there is no alternative is due to REGULATIONS that lobbyists from big telco managed to pass so that they have an advantage.

To truly believe that "regulations creates a level-playing field" is beyond naive. It's borderline harmful to you and for society at large.

[webmobdev]

> This is the idealistic view.

You work with the reality you live in, but you do strive for idealism. If you don't, you stagnate as the society rots.

The reality today is that in some democracies the balance of power has shifted from the people to the corporates. And that's unacceptable. Thinking that this is what's the best achievable in your democracy is just nihilistic and pessimistic attitude. Sitting silent is not an option. Regulation is one of the tools through which the government restores the balance between the corporates and the people. And it is possible to strike the right balance between the greed of the corporates and the need of the people.

[rglullis]

You are not "working with the reality you live in", you are effectively ignoring and denying reality in order to be able to sustain your worldview.

[webmobdev]

I am advocating political action for change in a democracy. Unless you live in a country that doesn't claim to be a democracy, this applies to any democracy. Just because your democracy is being screwed by the power to be, doesn't mean you stop believing in it and stop fighting for it.

[rglullis]

The issue is that the medicine you are proposing is oftentimes worse than the disease.

You call for increased regulations as a way to control corporations and "more power to the Government" but don't acknowledge the number of times that the elites have subverted the institutions for their own benefit. Sorry for the bluntness, but that is either malice or stupidity.

You completely ignored my argument that is important to look at the scale and reach of the democratic institution you're dealing with. It's all good if you say that you are working for democracy. It is not okay of your idea of democracy is to have some federal bureaucrat responsible in making decisions that affect so many people at once and does not take into account the desires and peculiarities of the people in the local level. I don't want Federal Government being responsible for and the arbiter of matters that are in the realm of the city council, much like I don't want the city council to step into things that should be in the realm of my neighbors association. The scale of power and reach matters. Do you understand that?

It seems your idea of "fighting for democracy" is in advocating more power and authority in an single entity and more central planning. History is filled with examples where centralization of power has always led to tyranny and abuse. Road to hell paved with good intentions and all...

So, before you start advocating for regulations that can affect so many people and have so many catastrophic unintended consequences, consider acting on the change on the smallest possible level: you. Once you do it and can honestly tell that the change was good, then you go a little bit higher in your circle and advocate for them to adopt the policies you did. Go bottom-up, not top-down. Not only is the most realistic way to affect change, it is the most ethical one.

[int_19h]

Switzerland is a country that banned minarets nation-wide in a federal referendum. It's all very democratic, but still an abuse of power.