![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osewalrusThe real question is not whether Amazon getting into the pharmaceutical market is good because amazon is actually big enough to take on the drug companies or bad because it will further enhance Amazon's power as the dominant platform for e-commerce. The real question is why is this our only choice? That we even need to have this debate is a failure of policy on so many fronts that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Likewise, it ought to be enough to interest us in regulating companies like Apple, Facebook and Google that they are so large and exercise such influence on the economy and our lives that it becomes possible to influence the outcome of elections by manipulating them, or that an arbitrary business decision can crush the livelihood of thousands of people now dependent on these platforms. We should not need to rely on questionable science that cannot tell the difference between "addictive" and "habit forming" to motivate us.
I am not naive, nor ignorant of history. But the fact that I can remember a time when it was not so, when we took policy seriously and merely required that we use public policy to improve lives and solve problems rather than reserve action only for hysteria induced panic, makes me a grumpy old man. But its not simply that we need crisis to actually overcome all the grit that has accumulated in the machine. Its that doing policy this way makes for bad policy. Our history shows that relying on waves of hysteria prompted by pop culture campaigns like Refer Madness produce policies that -- if they do not do more harm than good -- do much more harm than they need to do.
Worse, like so many system failures, it becomes self-reenforcing. If the only way to create reasonable economic regulation to promote competition and protect the free flow of news and information in a manner which makes functioning democracy possible is to claim that the iPhone is as addictive and destructive as heroin, then who cares if we are all collective ripped off by billions of dollars every year in hidden fees and unfair charges on everything from our cable bill to our airline tickets? Harms that we once would have corrected as a matter of course simply because doing so would improve our lives, or make the world a somewhat fairer or even better place, are no longer interesting to policy makers. I spent a good chunk of 2009-10 when the Obama Administration came in trying to interest either the FCC or the FTC in the "nickel and diming of America" through various overcharges and unfair fees. The singular lack of interest in something that "only" ripped people off by a few dollars a month was one of the more disheartening experiences of my public policy career.
Likewise, it ought to be enough to interest us in regulating companies like Apple, Facebook and Google that they are so large and exercise such influence on the economy and our lives that it becomes possible to influence the outcome of elections by manipulating them, or that an arbitrary business decision can crush the livelihood of thousands of people now dependent on these platforms. We should not need to rely on questionable science that cannot tell the difference between "addictive" and "habit forming" to motivate us.
I am not naive, nor ignorant of history. But the fact that I can remember a time when it was not so, when we took policy seriously and merely required that we use public policy to improve lives and solve problems rather than reserve action only for hysteria induced panic, makes me a grumpy old man. But its not simply that we need crisis to actually overcome all the grit that has accumulated in the machine. Its that doing policy this way makes for bad policy. Our history shows that relying on waves of hysteria prompted by pop culture campaigns like Refer Madness produce policies that -- if they do not do more harm than good -- do much more harm than they need to do.
Worse, like so many system failures, it becomes self-reenforcing. If the only way to create reasonable economic regulation to promote competition and protect the free flow of news and information in a manner which makes functioning democracy possible is to claim that the iPhone is as addictive and destructive as heroin, then who cares if we are all collective ripped off by billions of dollars every year in hidden fees and unfair charges on everything from our cable bill to our airline tickets? Harms that we once would have corrected as a matter of course simply because doing so would improve our lives, or make the world a somewhat fairer or even better place, are no longer interesting to policy makers. I spent a good chunk of 2009-10 when the Obama Administration came in trying to interest either the FCC or the FTC in the "nickel and diming of America" through various overcharges and unfair fees. The singular lack of interest in something that "only" ripped people off by a few dollars a month was one of the more disheartening experiences of my public policy career.
