
George Soros: Facebook and Google are a menace to society - lumberjack
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/25/george-soros-facebook-and-google-are-a-menace-to-society
======
dfee
I agreed with him until his conclusion:

"[Google and Facebook] claim that they are merely distributing information,
but the fact that they are near monopoly distributors make them in to public
utilities - and should subject them to more stringent regulations aimed at
preserving competition, innovation and fair and open universal access."

George Soros always seems to be selling something, so hearing the billionaire
cry foul gives me pause.

I don't disagree with the stated ambition – "preserved competition, innovation
and fair and open universal access", but I'm hesitant to join the rallying cry
for heavy handed regulation at this point. These always seem to come down on
other companies that don't have the resources to manage the regulations and
create an even more protectionist environment.

What are the unintended consequences of these regulations? We've all benefited
from the work that Google and Facebook have open sourced (definitely pushed
outside innovation forward), and many incredible businesses and entrepreneurs
have found footing on the solid platforms of each.

I don't know. I imagine that if we view these companies on a longer time
frame, we'll see that they end up folding in on themselves like every other
company – just maybe a generation or two later.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I feel like the solution doesn't necessarily need to involve _new_
regulations. Maybe just the application of existing ones to those companies
would be enough? Like his mention of "public utilities" \- what would happen,
if search engines / social media started getting classified as such?

~~~
sambe
Almost every public utility I've dealt with is completely dysfunctional, so
I'm not sure I'd advocate that unless my real aim was to destory them (which
it seems to be for some).

It's never clear to me what people even mean by this - it seems like a
fashionable phrase to throw around. So I second your question - what
practically speaking would happen under this scenario? I'd prefer to hear the
people advocating it be explicit about what they want and why.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'll be honest here: I don't know. I've been thinking for some time now
whether Facebook and Google should be "socialized", and I just can't see that
working. In fact, I only mentioned utilities in hope someone who has an idea
how it could work would share it. And the main question I wanted to ask is if
we really need new regulations for whatever-we-want-to-do with Google &
Facebook, or can we just reuse the old ones, and skip the part when we give
governments more power?

FWIW, in my perfect imaginary world, Google Search would work as it had worked
few years ago (back when it had less ads), while social networks like Facebook
would be forced to interoperate through some shared protocols. But then again,
my vision of the perfect Internet involves significantly reducing control the
publishing parties have - that is, those parties should publish content and
services, not dictate the way I should consume said content and services. I
should be perfectly free to render any site any way I like, including not
rendering it at all, but navigating through my own (or third party) software.

~~~
dfee
But regulations strike both ways. Your consumption patterns might not mirror
the mandated consumption patterns set forth by the government. For instance,
this is what folks against socialized medicine advocate - your freedoms as an
individual are reduced.

I think this strikes at the heart of my contempt for heavy handed approach to
regulation.

I kinda want to take that back and say we shouldn’t be having this
conversation at all. This narrative that everything needs to be regulated and
the Internet is a something makes me more worried that we’ll be required to do
things as much as we’ll be protected in doing other things.

E.g. a relationship between the government and Facebook in any fashion pushes
us closer to allowing Facebook as some form of shared trust - perhaps making
it an eligible Voting ID. We get to a point where it becomes more hassle than
it’s worth, benefiting the Gov and FB, but not really benefiting the end user.

Maybe that’s the real Net-Neutrality: keeping a hands-off relationship between
how I consume information and the regulation of such.

Yes, I feel like the regulatory movement is underway, and the narrative is
beginning to brew. And, I think we’re having someone else’s conversation.

------
f_allwein
From the speech transcript [
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16237684](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16237684)
]:

“Social media companies deceive their users by manipulating their attention
and directing it towards their own commercial purposes. They deliberately
engineer addiction to the services they provide. This can be very harmful,
particularly for adolescents. There is a similarity between internet platforms
and gambling companies.”

Good points to raise, but as a former Googler, I’m a bit surprised how he does
not distinguish between Google and FB at all. Are we all Google addicted then?
Remember Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from
Google as quick as possible.

~~~
Animats
_Google’s main business, Search, is still about getting you away from Google
as quick as possible._

It used to be. But that was a while ago. Most of the Google search results
today for popular topics lead to Google properties or are ads. As I've pointed
out for years, when search works right, the search engine doesn't make any
money. Page and Brin made that point in the original Google paper.

~~~
f_allwein
> Most of the Google search results today for popular topics lead to Google
> properties or are ads

This does not match my experience. Can you give some examples? "are ads" \- do
you mean AdWords, or websites in the search results that are actually ads?

As a single data point, I just did a Google search for [music subscription
services]. First result (for me) is Wikipedia, followed by several
comparisons, Spotify on 5th place, and Google Music not ranking in the top 10.
Looks good to me.

~~~
lukeschlather
What I see is a list of cards that take up most of the page. Each card has a
logo in it. First card is Spotify, second card is Google Play. When I click on
a card I get a search for that brand where the first result is an ad for that
brand's website.

On the original page, the only other visible links are an ad for Amazon Music,
and (mostly below-the-fold) "best music streaming services" from Consumer
Reports.

------
narrator
I think Facebook and Google enable populism. George Soros doesn't like that,
because if populism took care of everything they wouldn't need his billions
funding organizations that seek to start populist movements that promote his
values and narratives.

The main narrative that Soros promotes is "nationalism is racism" and the
corralary "strong states are fascist". This is why he is unpopular with
nationalist governments in Eastern Europe for example that reject EU
immigration rules and why he attempts to undermine those government's
legitimacy in Hungary for example. He can pay for media campaigns to support
his positions and he can exert influence financially over media networks, but
he can't control the masses on social media which thwart his vision.

~~~
guy98238710
This sounds like a rant by someone under influence of Hungary's hate campaign
against Soros. The fact is that Hungarian government is dismantling democracy
and both EU and Soros are right in pointing that out. And while immigration is
a matter of national sovereignty, the attitudes towards Muslim immigrants in
eastern Europe are driven by nothing but pure xenophobia.

~~~
jamesblonde
Right on. The government in Hungary are scandalous in their treatment of
immigrants and their own Roma people. And to think, it was only 13 years ago
we let them into the EU. When, in turn, people on their doorstep in trouble
come knocking, the door is firmly slammed in their face.

~~~
PopsiclePete
Eastern European and Western European countries' past history and experience
is _very_ different from one another. And events that happened 600 years ago
influence that world-view to this day.

The way an "enlightened" Frenchman or Italian might view Turkey is very,
_very_ different from how a Bulgarian (such as myself) or Serb would view
them. As to who's more "correct" in their view, well - that's a whole
different subject.

These are complex issues and calling Hungary a bunch of racist twats is
_exactly the same_ as what Hungarians are doing to "refugees", who,
interestingly enough, are _disproportionately_ young men, in good physical
condition, running away from countries that are _not_ Syria or otherwise in a
state of war. Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing show a
distinct and very noticeable lack of women and children. And that in itself is
also a very interesting subject we could debate for hours.

~~~
s2g
> Some of the photographs I've seen of the border crossing

and you trust those photos?

~~~
dragonwriter
The most popular set of photos used to spread this meme are scenes of a group
of migrants arriving by train in Munich (not at a border crossing) that are
exclusively young men; for reasons not entirely clear to me they were on a
separate train from the women and children in the same group, who arrived the
next day.

There's also pictures of groups of _boat_ refugees that show a large
imbalance, which is true of those using that mode of transport, who often
leave women and children to follow on once they've found a place because of
the extreme danger of the route (which, yes, might evidence some degree of
non-progressive concept of gender roles, but that's not the issue being
raised.)

------
simonh
Facebook and Google both have histories of actively shaping user behaviour and
directing attention which are very problematic. I definitely agree with that.
Particularly Facebook, which seems much more aggressive and tone deaf in that
regard. It’s a problem that I think is a legitimate area for regulation or at
least oversight combined with voluntary restraint, because users are being
deceived. They should at least know how their attention is being directed and
have some controls over it.

I don’t agree that treating them as utilities is going to foster innovation.
Really? Utilities are examples of innovation? Both Google and Facebook are
still highly innovative companies, that’s how they created and consolidated
their positions. They key is that the future success of their innovations
should be based on merit versus other innovative companies, rather than based
on leveraging their current market strength in anticompetitive ways.

This is all really hard to do. There is just as much threat that clumsy
regulation will stifle innovation, fossilize market positions and increase
costs as there is that lack of regulation will lead to abuses by these
companies. It’s good that this issue is being debated, but I don’t think
anyone has good answers yet.

~~~
gaius
_Utilities are examples of innovation?_

It’s funny, I take streaming 4k from Netflix totally for granted but I am
genuinely impressed by the way natural gas and fresh drinking water appear in
my house as if by magic.

~~~
rrmm
And urban life as we know it would be impossible without sewage and sanitation
services.

~~~
thisacctforreal
We've had that technology since Rome. I think it's fair to say most current
internet and cable monopolies have been dragging their feet on upgrades, and
even actively resisting innovation.

~~~
vanderZwan
> We've had that technology since Rome.

No, the Romans did, through their _government_. Then it all disappeared until
the last century, when _governments_ brought them back.

------
staunch
A comparison to oil monopolies confirms that he's entirely confused. There is
absolutely no historical analog to Google or Facebook.

Everything about the internet and computer technology is uncharted territory.
The most technical human on earth can't predict what will happen even 5 years
in the future.

It is safe to predict that Google and Facebook are going to be obsoleted by
newer, cheaper, better technology. Google/Facebook operate highly inefficient
businesses and that's the weakness that will wipe them both out. No government
intervention will be necessary.

Hint: #decentralization

The big internet risk is the last mile, controlled by Comcast/AT&T. We need a
campaign to move the whole country to fiber conduit powered by local internet
providers.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Hint: #decentralization_

Any idea how it's going to happen? Historical evidence so far suggests
technologies tend to _centralize_. And it's quite obvious why - centralized
systems are generally more efficient in terms of energy use, time and
(important for market) money. There's a solid incentive gradient pushing
things towards further centralization, and very weak one in the opposite
direction. I do not see anything on the horizon that would change it (and no,
blockchains don't count for now - if anything, cryptocurrencies are a lesson
in just how quickly systems centralize).

~~~
staunch
"Historical evidence" does not exist! There are new decentralized protocols
being launched every ~day now. This is how decentralization really works, it's
crazy and wild, and not at all planned by anyone.

Even just an evolved version of this, a ten thousand centralized internet
currency marketplace, would constitute a decentralized internet currency
_system_. And this is probably the weakest system that could result.

~~~
Dumbdo
> There are new decentralized protocols being launched every ~day now

That may be true, but why does it matter if there's no adoption? As the guy
you replied to pointed out, there's no incentive to use a decentralized system
for the average user as it's more inefficient and slower by design.

I'm not saying that I'm not interested in decentralized systems, I'm simply
arguing that there's no incentive to use them except for a few people whose
interest in privacy is very high.

------
kelvin0
A long time ago, the printed word was the way to influence and disseminate
ideas. Some ideas good, some less and most people could not read.

Then came Radio with it's ads and shows. It was another way to nudge the
masses and shape the 'public' opinion. Everyone who had a radio could tune-in.

Television, the moving image! The joy: everyone could watch an endless stream
of shows. This was not lost on advertisers ,corporations and propaganda arms
of the states.

Now comes FB, Google, Twitter and all these attention hoarding 'services'.

I am not a user of any social medias (not do I condone their use), but how is
that different from the previous innovations which allows mass communication?
If anything it seems to me that Soros and others might find it decentralizes
and weakens their power of media convergence? Would Soros think the same if he
had been CEO of FB?

Of course I am sad of seeing so many young people wasting their attention on
their illuminated mobile screens, and certainly see the harm in it. But Soros,
what is you 'beef' with FB? I doubt that the devolution of humanity makes him
loose sleep at night.

~~~
jacksnipe
David Foster Wallace addresses this in his essay "E Unibus Pluram: Television
and U.S. Fiction" [1]. The essay was written just as computing technology was
starting to get to the point where it was clear it was about to be ubiquitous.
For context, DFW is attacking Gilder's hypothesis that the decentralized
nature of the next big medium will give people some measure of control over
their reality, and he is using a novel by Leyner about a future in which
everybody can slice and dice their experience of reality at will to illustrate
his point.

"Leyner's world is a Gilderesque dystopia. The passivity and schizoid decay
still endure for Leyner in his characters' reception of images and waves of
data. The ability to _combine_ them only adds a layer of disorientation: when
all experience can be deconstructed and reconfigured, there become simply too
many choices. And in the absence of any credible, noncommercial guides for
living, the freedom to choose is about as "liberating" as a bad acid trip:
each quantum is as good as the next, and the only standard of a particular
construct's quality is its weirdness, incongruity, its ability to stand out
from a crowd of other image-constructs and wow some Audience."

I found it disturbingly descriptive of today's cultural landscape.

(NOTE: Obviously fiction analysis != analysis of reality, but the essay has
some very good points.)

[1] [https://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf](https://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf)

------
dqpb
How about we start treating internet as a public utility before we start
demanding that web apps are.

------
CryptoPunk
I would rather solutions to large concentrations of tech power not come from
above, in the way of government further expanding its control over the private
sphere, but from below, via technological innovation in the form of
distributed technologies like blockchains.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'd rather that too, but it is quite likely impossible. Technological
innovation unleashed on the free market is what _caused_ this. Monopoly is a
natural end-goal of a company, and it's the usual job of governments to
prevent companies from achieving that goal.

(Also, I don't think governments need to approach this problem by expanding
scope of their control; they could use the control they already have. Just
break up too big companies, and the next time someone gets this large, break
them up too. No need for extra special regulations.)

The only way blockchains can be effective at combating large concentrations of
tech power is by cooking the planet, so there's no more technological
civilization, and quite probably, also no more humans.

I just can't see why the one technology that has unbounded energy waste
problems and is primarily used for get-rich-quick schemes is also seen as a
_feasible_ way to solve societal problems.

~~~
CryptoPunk
These technologies broke up arguably worse monopolies, over information
(Google democraticizing access to information) and media (Facebook and other
social media companies breaking the hold that mass media had over people's
opinions by giving them an avenue to directly communicate).

I think people forget how bad the mass media situation was. We had a handful
of companies disseminate one way broadcasting to the entire population. The
audience were passive viewers whose choices in programming were extremely
limited, and who had very little ability to participate in the creation and
curation of the media content.

So I don't think it's clear that the market, left to its own devices, doesn't
evolve toward the direction of greater personal autonomy and empowerment, and
it's certainly not clear that it doesn't have the potential to.

>>Monopoly is a natural end-goal of a company, and it's the usual job of
governments to prevent companies from achieving that goal.

Bottom up switch over to open source is a viable market solution to market
monopolies. If Android or Linux become the market standard in OSs for example,
that is not a proprietary monopoly that gives one group control over the OS.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I think people forget how bad the mass media situation was (...)_

Good point. Come to think of it, Facebook _is_ a huge improvement over what
came before. Some could say that the pre-Facebook blogging era was better, but
I don't think those times ever had a chance of growing to encompass regular
people. Most of the people who now share their lives on social media wouldn't
bother hosting their own blogs. This thought colors my next point:

> _Bottom up switch over to open source is a viable market solution to market
> monopolies._

I don't buy it for the same reason I think Internet-of-blogs wasn't a stable
state - it's much easier to take open-source code and turn it into business
than it is to take a business and make it open source. Open source, by its
nature, avoids attracting money, and money is exactly how you win mindshare.
You say, "If Android or Linux become the market standard in OSs for example",
but the truth is that the only Android that could become a market standard is
the _Google_ Android, and Linux has no chance in hell as long as Microsoft and
Apple have money to better tailor (and market) their OSes to end users
(regular people and corporations).

If anything, Open source has proven to be primarily successful for building
blocks - libraries, frameworks, server operating systems, etc. Basically all
the things that are not core to doing business. Sure, some of the things that
open source displaced were market niches before - but they were all supporting
infrastructure. The only sort-of-exception I can think of here is Google
Chrome, but it only reduced Microsoft's monopoly, while enabling Google's
monopoly.

Ironically, web browsers are what ultimately _killed_ end-user open source
software. With SaaS being the dominant model of software deployment these
days, _there is no open source_. You don't know what code actually runs on
third party servers. You can't run it yourself easily (or most commonly, _at
all_ ). We've completely lost the ability to download, inspect, modify and
share most of the software we use, and "in exchange", we also let third
parties take our _data_ hostage.

No, this development does not sound like open source being an alternative to
market monopolies. In fact, it sounds like the exact opposite.

~~~
CryptoPunk
>>Some could say that the pre-Facebook blogging era was better, but I don't
think those times ever had a chance of growing to encompass regular people.

Agree entirely.

>>the truth is that the only Android that could become a market standard is
the Google Android, and Linux has no chance in hell as long as Microsoft and
Apple have money to better tailor (and market) their OSes to end users
(regular people and corporations).

Well Google Android has a much less entrenched position than Windows did, and
it's precisely because it is open source. One can run non-Google Androids that
are fully compatible with other Android apps, and Google would never be able
to charge for its version for that reason.

>>Open source, by its nature, avoids attracting money, and money is exactly
how you win mindshare.

While that's often the case, there are times where its nonproprietary nature
facilitates its adoption. The fact that no one group owns an open source
project can be an attractive feature, especially when disparate parties are
looking for a common protocol or platform to collaborate through.

Cryptocurrency is both open source and attracts money. That's why I think
blockchains might succeed against traditional web companies.

All-in-all I think our chances of being to solve the market monopoly problem
with technology is good given the space of possible solutions. Of course this
is just an opinion and I can't prove that it will work.

------
smhg
To bring some counterweight to all the hatred towards George Soros:

A recent Freakonomics Radio show taught me he is a skilled Esperanto speaker.
Esperanto enthusiasts generally belong to the more altruist type of people.
This might or might not apply to him, but I considered this a sign he probably
means well.

Edit: I see he learned it as a child from his father. I guess in that case it
says little about his personality.

~~~
philipwhiuk
> A recent Freakonomics Radio show taught me he is a skilled Esperanto
> speaker. Esperanto enthusiasts generally belong to the more altruist type of
> people. This might or might not apply to him, but I considered this a sign
> he probably means well.

Let me get this right, your argument is bluntly 'all Esperanto speakers are
nice'?

How utterly ridiculous.

~~~
smhg
As I wrote: I think, on average, Esperanto speakers are more altruistic.

Someone who knows more about it should jump in, but as I get it: due to the
limited use of the language, a lot of sharing is involved in the community.

Also, learning an almost useless language is hardly a selfish thing to do.

Why do you think this reasoning is ridiculous?

------
Dowwie
A world famous hedge fund manager who made a fortune betting on the right side
of billions of dollars worth of trades calls tech companies a menace to
society.

Please, do tell.

------
Daycrawler
I agree with all except that it needs to be regulated. Nor Google nor Facebook
(nor any social media) are pushed down our throats, and it is the choice of
the people to use it. I don't understand how consumers can build judgement and
learn to be responsible for themselves if we always shelter them from poor
consumption choices through regulation laws. Furthermore if they're unaware
enough to need regulation laws, it means they're unaware enough to be abused
by regulation laws, so it's definitely not an actual solution.

------
gonvaled
Dataism is here to stay: if it is not Google / Facebook, it will be somebody
else. Progress can not be stopped. Those regulating their technology industry
will be left behind. Taking a line from Jurassic Park: "Life finds a way".

We are doomed to become irrelevant, unless we are _really_ special, which is
not probable.

------
golemotron
The real problem with Google, Facebook and other social media companies is
that they are two faced. They present themselves as information sources based
on organic interactions and ratings of their users but there can't be any
guarantee that they don't manipulate feeds for other purposes.

Even without an advertising model, we can't go back to a time without
curation. People try to game rankings and ratings for other reasons. That
means that we can't trust what we see on social and, more importantly, draw
any inference from what we don't see.

Society needs avenues of unmediated communication. I don't know what that
would look like for social.

------
swarnie_
Pot, meet kettle...

------
ilaksh
It seems inevitable to me that these monopolies on search and social (and in
other areas) will be replaced by something less centralized/subject to
surveillance/propaganda and more sane and decentralized. We need open
distributed, flexible, evolvable but also on some level holistic software
protocols and systems that can be widely deployed rather than giant servers/
platforms controlled by for-profit companies in league with over-powered
government.

See r/rad_decentralization on Reddit.

------
_pdp_
If the rumours that Zuckerberg is prepping for the US presidency are true then
this will be one of the first attacks to come on his business and character.

------
qbaqbaqba
Yup, and mr. Soros is such a nice guy. It's manipulating the society a bad
thing, not the tools the bad guys use. Social media democratized manipulating
the society, made it cheaper, that's all.

------
zecg
Google+ is the best social network, I haven't been there in years.

------
halis
[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PnRiGs3wYPg/movieposter.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PnRiGs3wYPg/movieposter.jpg)

------
pcora
We are seeing more and more news and speeches like that recently. While I
agree with a lot of them, in terms that these big players are really bad for
society, I keep thinking, what is making all of this to be published now? Who
is actually behind that? If FB / Google fall, if the web with ads as we have
today fall, who will get a ton of money?

Some of it might be a trend as we are seeing a lot of books, paid articles
about focus, ditching social networks, etc, but I dunno if that is the trend
or just a bi-product of the articles in the big media.

~~~
Bucephalus355
I would say that to some extent it’s always been there. At different times,
the public is more or less willing to hear certain arguments.

So arguments that only existed in say academia or quarterly political journals
are now allowed to flow into more “regular” news sources.

Also, it doesn’t help that now Google / Facebook are hated by both the left
and the right. Usually you can survive for a while by playing both one side
off of another. Very quickly though they got surrounded surrounded on all
sides, like the Germans at Stalingrad, and there is no way out, and the vise
grows tighter everyday.

------
darepublic
George soros himself seems pretty menacing to me

------
tw1010
It feels like we're just trying to find something to get pissed off about. No
one is forcing anyone to use these services. Everyone is using it by their own
volition.

------
ojbyrne
I kind of feel like a billionaire calling anyone or anything a threat to
society (in the sense of communal support) is very much a case of Pot Kettle
Black.

------
aj7
This is entirely peripheral to the discussion but I actually attempted to
“watch” the live feed of Soros’ speech on facebook.bloomberg.etc You know,
where the little face emojis, each with a comment, flash across the stream.
Never saw such unabashed hatred for anyone. Lies that a nine-year-old Jewish
kid was a Nazi collaborator, implications that he was Satan, plaintive wishes
that he would just die, “the works.” It was a remarkable focus and quantity of
pure hatred of a single person.

~~~
crusso
Do you think it would be any different for a speech from one of the Koch
brothers? People who use their wealth to directly influence the political
process are particularly reviled by their ideological opponents.

~~~
croon
[https://www.google.se/search?q=ben+garrison+soros&tbm=isch](https://www.google.se/search?q=ben+garrison+soros&tbm=isch)

[https://www.google.se/search?q=infowars+soros](https://www.google.se/search?q=infowars+soros)
(400k+ hits)

Try this with breitbart, glenn beck, fox news, right wing subreddits etc.

Is there any similar counterpart for Kochs and Mercers et al?

~~~
crusso
Are you wondering if there are lots of political cartoons for them? Seems to
be.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=koch+political+cartoons&sour...](https://www.google.com/search?q=koch+political+cartoons&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZgt__1vXYAhULrFMKHdKnDSsQ_AUICigB&biw=1360&bih=752)

------
zdfjkhiuj
He's right, but I don't like that he's the person saying this. Our society has
a serious problem with giving too much weight to the opinions of rich people
and celebrities. Soros is not an expert on anything except investing. No one
should care about what he thinks. I hate the fact that George Soros saying
this is news but all the _real_ experts are largely ignored by the press.

I see the same thing with pretty much everything Elon Musk says. He's very
rich, so whenever he makes some asinine comment about transportation or AI or
tunnel boring every news agency is all over it.

------
jlebrech
Takes one to know one.

------
diegomsana
Says the guy who bankrupt 3rd world country central banks just because he
could.

