I think he's saying something different in this context: that the reason democracies are generally the least bad forms of government is that they are bounded by the popular will, that is the consent of the governed puts limits on the exercise of power. He's not advocating for the tyranny of the majority, rather saying that the power of Google and Facebook is particularly dangerous because it is not constrained or bounded in the way that a democratic government's power is bounded.
I think you make a good point about institutions though. In practice they may be more important on a day to day basis than the popular will in placing constraints on government power.
This is a good point. Sustainable growth requires a balance of power, which is why things have developed in this direction. Collective action at large scale has traditionally been controlled by governments. The most successful governments are bounded by popular will, which is directed by institutions, which are informed by traditions that have developed from previous successes and failures.
Disruptive innovation requires disturbing some part of that chain of influence. Microsoft and Apple have found success mostly by providing tools to people who exist in established parts of that chain. Google and Facebook and many other current-generation startups are more likely to use the power of collective action to create feedback loops where collective action directly informs further collective action with limited checks and balances. This sometimes leads to imbalances which spark mass outrage over policies that do not fit into people's concepts of how things ought to work.
Is this kind of power sustainable? It's likely to follow a more volatile path of quick growth followed by outrage over the outcomes that make people uncomfortable, but it might find equilibrium regardless, as it still has to exist in the world that was formed by traditional institutions.
In reality, Google and Facebook grow more unbounded, as they continually use their power($) to buy more companies and become more horizontally-integrated organizations to add to their business models. This by proxy also absorbs the members/users of those other companies and brings them under their corporate umbrellas.
It would be like if the U.S. decided it would be good for them to own the entire Caribbean in addition to Puerto Rico, so they acquired all the islands (through power or other means) and then those citizens became some sort of pseudo-citizens of the U.S. as a result.
Isn’t this just the story of all corporations though? They start selling a niche product, and then they have three axes for growth: vertical, horizontal, and addressable market. All corporations take “breaths” on each of these axes as they see opportunities. But a corporation that grows too wide finds a more focused competitor stealing their share. A company that grows too tall sees a competitor using network effects against them. Growing the addressable market generally lifts all ships, but hits a limit once you max out global marketing.
Every company will eventually flex as far as they can on all these axes. I’m interested if you have some insight about something that makes Google particularly dangerous in the horizontal direction?
At least when it comes to Facebook, for a significant number of people, participation in Facebook is not an actual choice. It's similarly to living without electricity: Yes, you could do it, but the costs are too large to actually do it in practice. It's still freedom of choice on paper (because no one points a gun at people and forces them to use Facebook), but not in practice.
This is maybe one of Facebook's most crucial achievements: It has turned itself into something which people feel they cannot live without, even if they might hate it.
Google is a bit different story. Living without Google is doable with some but not gigantic sacrifices.
I think that's overstating it. Who literally needs Facebook as much as electricity? I'm saying this as someone who has a Facebook account, but never logs in to it or posts anything.
It's certainly overstating it, but take this example from my own life.
My step-sister spent years fighting cancer. I knew this, and would talk to her occasionally, but I wouldn't find out about significant events until after the fact.
As soon as I surrendered and finally joined Facebook, I discovered she was in the hospital again, and was able to go visit and spend some quality time with her. As it turned out, it was the best conversation we ever had, the most time I spent 1:1 with her before she passed away.
Are there other ways of keeping in touch with family? Sure. Once your family is invested in using Facebook, however, that's where you have to be to know what's going on all the time.
I dislike Facebook, and look forward to getting rid of it. I cannot, however, dismiss the unique value it offers.
The only other means of communication which might have led me down the same path on that occasion was a family message board on QuickTopic.
However, frankly, Facebook is much better, for a wide variety of reasons. The message board was never ideal, privacy was a binary choice, people regularly struggled with it, photo sharing was a joke, etc. It's not at all obvious that the short hospital stay would have been communicated there.
Email, phone? Nope, wouldn't have happened.
Has Facebook displaced other communications mechanisms? Sure. But for the most part, the alternatives were far from ideal. Facebook has won by being better.
It's just unfortunate that they aren't satisfied with being a good way of keeping in touch with friends and family.
I recently wrote a blog post in which I described the various lock-in effects that are at play. This statement from above has little to do with my personal experience (I'm almost gone from Facebook, although not completely yet) but with actually understanding how crucial Facebook is for most people.
Here is the relevant part:
- The need to supplant emotional labor with Facebook (read Sarah Jeong’s essay on how she tried to stay away from Facebook and really felt bad about it. For many, not having Facebook means an extremely weakened social support network)
- The need to use Facebook to get required information (such as parties, events, gossip, personalized news).
- The need to use Facebook to run a business/make a living (Read: Emerging Markets Can’t Quit Facebook)
- The need to use Facebook for work-related tasks.
- The need to use Facebook to maintain and reach a personal audience (particularly relevant for influencers and people from the fields of media, marketing and communication, politicians etc.)
- The need to login to 3rd party sites with Facebook credentials"
Not everything applies to everyone. But I bet that almost every active Facebook user would recognize themselves in some of these. And unlike what the general tenor at HN suggests, most people are not willing to accept any sacrifice in order to remove Facebook from their lives.
I think you make a good point about institutions though. In practice they may be more important on a day to day basis than the popular will in placing constraints on government power.