This makes me think that the Chinese model where a company beyond certain size simply becomes a branch of the government actually does have decent upsides. Of course I don't have any specific suggestions about the process of transfer of power and we shouldn't judge the Chinese companies from the point of view of western liberal ideals, but my point is, imagine Gmail, Android and YouTube being public services maintained by the government. Like, from technological point of view, these services are virtually solved, there's nothing much to do to improve them besides basic maintenance, which is exactly what government is great at. Moreover, being public service, we'd accept better quality even if it's a money sink, instead of bitching about endless ads and slop and dark UI patterns and bad customer service. Meanwhile let the private companies innovate in areas that truly do need invitation.
> This makes me think that the Chinese model where a company beyond certain size simply becomes a branch of the government actually does have decent upsides
The government is at least far more accountable to the people. Certainly, it could be a lot more accountable than it is, it’s very far from ideal. But it’s something.
It is the least accountable to the people organization possible. Solving problems via government is akin to shooting drones with a cannon. No feedback mechanism, long terms with no elections, unlimited distribution of your money to people that are their buddies.
Yes, and it aligns with my experience. It takes a while, but it works. My home country created an app where I can have legally valid ID and driving license. When the coronavirus hit most of the infrastructure for the vaccination certificates was already there. The one where I live in now created a website where tax report boils down to a series of easily understandable questions, and most users will just click "next next next send". Train company has an app that allows me to check the timetable very easily.
I really fail to see why a mid-sized government would be incapable of providing basic email service.
Government divisions ignore ethics & morality all the time if it's politically inconvenient, and what is even worse is since they are the government, they are immune from most criminal and civil prosecution! Using the PRC as a bastion of morality isn't good idea either. (watch as I get pro-PRC troll replies)
Atleast in China they have to option to give CEO's the death penalty if they step out of line. I think silicon valley behaviour would be better if the CEO's had some skin in the game.
Are these CEOs not "actual criminals"? Frankly, a CEO who knowingly allows his company to put poison (melamine) in the baby formula they produce -- killing several babies and hospitalizing *51,900* others -- is far more of a "criminal" than a simple mugger. Muggers can only hurt so many people, while major corporations have the capacity to cause harm on a society-wide scale.
And according to the right the CEOs need to be paid obscene amounts of money because they’re ultimately responsible for everything the company does. Can’t have it both ways.
What's amazing is the cynical moral calculus people like yourself engage in when you completely discount some types of human lives, but then display this theatrical shock at the notion that the lives of your personal mythological figures - Presidents and "literal" CEOs - might not be utterly sacrosanct in everyone's eyes, the way they are in yours.
How many lives is a CEO's life worth to you? How many lives is "the life of the President" worth?
The actual criminal here is the CEO. But of course very right-coded is to not care about child safety, since the right is the biggest perpetrator of child sex offences and don't mind associating with them.
