> can still require the manufacturers to privately submit to the government all code
I wonder if companies purchasing trains could put code disclosure in the purchase contract? I wonder if, in aggregate, train purchasers or car purchasers could fund an independent code storage vault and pay a small premium to fund that code vault organization?
In other words, if purchasers wanted this and valued this, they would demand it in purchase contracts and fund it.
> when a company lays people off, the town, state, and federal government are the ones who have to end up picking up the downstream effects
If the existing unemployment _insurance_ (forced payroll contributions to each State) are not sufficient, then change that insurance system.
There could be a business opportunity for supplemental market-priced contributions which pay on job loss. That wouldn't be worse than the 'legal assist' ripoff plans HR pimps at employee hiring.
Unemployment insurance can't, and shouldn't be designed around market acting irrationally. That's not a reasonable insurance plan.
> then change that insurance system.
Also, more about this, why? We have a ton of levers and controls we can utilize here. Why does it need to be that the insurance system needs to change? That seems like we're closing off a lot of levers _just because_
Forced unemployment insurance is a supposed safety net, so should be open to discussion as part of solution. Let me opt out, or take premiums to a non-State provider.
I observed Twitter/X was recently loosening previous owner's restrictions and censorship. I'm apparently misinformed, so how is enabling previously banned accounts hurting free speech?
If it was actually about free speech, the Elon Jet Tracker account wouldn’t be banned. It’s actually about being able to say bigoted things without consequences.
Also if it was actually about free speech, he wouldn’t immediately capitulate every time a foreign government asks him to remove content they deem inappropriate.
> I'm apparently misinformed, so how is enabling previously banned accounts hurting free speech?
I never said it was. That is a choice. Elon doesn't like advertisers pulling their spend (free speech) and the general public leaving (free speech and association). He wants to demand an audience under his terms (participants must stay, advertisers must continue to spend under his terms), leading to this natural experiment. I apologize if that wasn't clear from my turn of phrase with regards to being held hostage.
Twitter will die, Elon will take the L (but probably not learn from it until some future wealth destruction event), and everyone will move on to other forums and digital third spaces. Enjoy the show.
Of course, criticizing advertisers for pulling their spend because they do not like the free speech of other users is also free speech. It's quite reasonable to name and shame companies that take actions that try to restrict other peoples' free speech.
(I'm using 'free speech' outside of the governmental context - the government can't abridge free speech, but outside of that free speech is simply a good idea.)
Let's be honest here. It isn't some objective definition free speech, it is whatever Elon believes to be free speech at the time [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It is absolutely silly to expect any company to financially support a platform with a dynamic and fluid version of "absolute free speech." I certainly don't want my consumer dollars flowing through companies to Twitter/X as marketing spend based on how it operates.
If you have speech others don't like, be prepared to get your wallet out and pay for it yourself. No one is obligated to financially support speech they don't agree with. You might believe that to "name and shame companies that take actions that try to restrict other peoples' free speech" is going to result in some backlash against these companies; it won't except in some small, immaterial population. Let Elon put comms out and say, "If you don't directly pay for Twitter, Twitter will die" and lets see how many people show up to pay their expenses and fiat behind their belief system.
> but outside of that free speech is simply a good idea.
This is an opinion, and other takes are going to be based on the limits involved [6].
> 65% of Americans support tech companies moderating false information online and 55% support the U.S. government taking these steps. These shares have increased since 2018.
> Americans are even more supportive of tech companies (71%) and the U.S. government (60%) restricting extremely violent content online.
> Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of tech companies and the U.S. government restricting extremely violent content and false information online. The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018.
Correct. So get on the horn with your representative! Handling this through a democracy would be just horrible. Imagine the abuses that could be proffered to minorities with this.
> in possession of a mystical lever, a single number that they can change to steer the behavior
Federal Reserve has more than one lever. They set bank reserve ratios. They engage in outright buying of underwater (mispriced) paper through quantitative easing. They created a new program this year to swap SVB's mispriced bond holdings at par.
It's time to reel in Federal Reserve and reel in government deficit spending.
They can also change initial margin requirements (Reg T), but this hasn't been done in decades. Neither have reserve requirements been changed since they were dropped to zero in the wake of the GFC.
They do have a few numbers though. The Federal Funds rate isn't actually directly set by them, but rather, targeted, using other policy to "enforce" that target (in the form of open market operations -- buying and selling securities)
For what it's worth, it's amusing that they talk about the FF rate at all, given how vacant the market itself has been since the GFC (down to about $100B/night), as few care to engage in unsecured lending in the first place now that we all are painfully aware of counter-party risk. They do, however, directly set the reverse repo rate, the discount window rate (aka Primary Credit), and the prime rate (though, how much prime matters these days is a matter for debate).
Thanks for the reminder! I recall Fed was involved with something in reverse repo 6 months before virus blew up.
Federal Reserve has so many levers it becomes questionable that anyone understands medium to long term impacts. And FDIC works closely with Fed on bank bailouts like SVB.
There was serious labor abuse in past years, and capital doesn't have as much power in the new info-WFH-open source economy. Mineral rights and office space and expensive yearly software support contracts are gone. Stop waiting on government regulators for action on white collar issues.
How does that relate to capital and jobs? Unlike physical mining and physical manufacturing, capital is not a gating feature of bits and bytes tech startups.
We saw violent destruction during covid lockdowns by BLM. What did that accomplish?
Does 'tech' just mean software to you? like what about 95% of the economy, you need capital even for ebikes
> We saw violent destruction during covid lockdowns by BLM. What did that accomplish?
I am not spokesperson for BLM, and not from US.
But UK had similar riots when the Government made a pledge not to raise univeristy fees, and in the first 3 months they raised them, and then killed a student at a protest. So protests turned into riots.
Iam not sure whats new here, we knew for thousands of years -
You fuck around and piss off like a million people, eventually you are gonna find out.
Saying that capital doesn't have as much power in the new economy is bullshit.
The WFH thing is the only maybe, but you see how companies don't want that? It is much more about control than performance, as is usually the case with Capital.
I wonder if companies purchasing trains could put code disclosure in the purchase contract? I wonder if, in aggregate, train purchasers or car purchasers could fund an independent code storage vault and pay a small premium to fund that code vault organization?
In other words, if purchasers wanted this and valued this, they would demand it in purchase contracts and fund it.