For meta/facebook at least it’s long been an open secret that the fastest way to get something done on the platform is to have a connection that works at meta.
Depends on what "something" is. When I was at FB, they were very clear that you can request account help internally only for your immediate family (and maybe closest friends, I forget) - you are, in essence, vouching for them with your employment as collateral. Helping random strangers or even acquaintances was out of the question. In the early days it was possible, but the team responsible for this stuff got overwhelmed.
On the other hand, after I left, I once needed help with a developer-facing page that was broken. For the life of me I could not figure out how to get in touch with a human, so reached out to an ex-colleague and the issue was resolved within a few days. I don't love having to resort to this for many reasons.
Meta provides employees with a dedicated support line called Oops@ to address requests from friends and family, they are not allowed to deal with the issues directly:
Accessing anyone other than yourself's personal data, including immediate family, is also grounds for immediate dismissal. After all, stalking and domestic abuse occur primarily within the family.
Same thing with Google Ads, often your account will get suspended for no sane reason and you need an insider to reactivate it, or you're starting from scratch. Appealing only sends you through a kafkaesque circle of hell of support staff who are unable to answer any questions or fix anything, they won't even tell you what exactly you violated or how to return into their good graces.
It's effectively a black market that formed because the official channels abdicated from their responsibilities or provide a terrible service even to paying customers, at least SMBs who aren't big enough for a Google to care.
Yep, it feels like them being a monopoly effectively kills every incentive for them to try harder. It's reminiscent of bureaucracy in third world countries where you will not get your passport issued or renewed until you grease enough palms of the right people who feel entitled to a certain level of corruption for their respective role.
> Yep, it feels like them being a monopoly effectively kills every incentive for them to try harder.
Microsoft at its worst had insanely good enterprise level support.
Even small business owners had access to paid premium support options, and if the issue you reported turned out to be a product bug, the support costs were refunded.
> until you grease enough palms of the right people who feel entitled to a certain level of corruption for their respective role.
The capitalist way of looking at that would be they maximally decreased the market price of their service, and the bribery is simply accounting for externalities that you weren't paying for in that market price.
Or in other words, bribery is their support-funding model.
The model involves artificial scarcity and setting examples. You don't give a passport to 1000 people, charge $5 and you have $5000 charge $500 and you have $50 000, charge $5000 and you have $100 000, charge $20 000 and you have $200 000. I know one story where a prison charged 1 million for release. If extended family is not extremely poor they should really put their 3-50 k into the bag each to avoid all kinds of free services like torturing the victim and getting abducted themselves.
If you [say] didn't buy the passport it is only fair to put you in prison? $20 000 is much more value for money than you think!
There is no market incentive for this to be the steady state. All companies only want to pay lip service to competition, but in reality, they do everything in their power to prevent competition and monopolize the market. Product tie-ins, lock-ins, exclusive contracts, etc.
For your vision to be a reality there needs to be significant tax on monopolies and no company should be allowed to become a trillion dollar company. Taxes & Regulations FTW.
> There is no market incentive for this to be the steady state.
The market incentive is that everyone other than the monopolist will want to take the monopolist's market share. The monopolist, in turn, captures the government and uses "Taxes & Regulations" to ensure that random small businesses can't enter the market and take their market share.
Yes, because money == power, and lobbying is legal. If you had progressive taxation that would essentially prevent any entity from acquiring power to rival the state. The inherent weakness of democracies is that they require constant care and attention. If you look away for a second, there is going to be some corporation trying to re-write the tax code or do away with regulations.
> If you had progressive taxation that would essentially prevent any entity from acquiring power to rival the state.
We have progressive taxation. That doesn't matter because fixed costs are fixed.
If it costs $30,000/year to live, someone who makes $30,000/year will accumulate no wealth even if you tax them at 0%, because all of their income is going to food and rent and utilities. Whereas someone who makes a billion dollars a year will accumulate wealth even if you tax them at 90%, because the remaining 10% is still a hundred million dollars and after you subtract out $30,000, or even $250,000, there is still nearly the entire hundred million dollars left. Then that hundred million dollars collects interest every year going forward.
Trying to use taxation also ignores that the problem isn't actually billionaires. Corporations have more money than any individual, but the largest ones are publicly traded, so that would still be the case even if no individual shareholder had a lot of wealth. Because the corporation would, and its executives would thereby be in control of those resources and use them to capture the government.
It also ignores that you don't have to be a single entity to capture the government. For example, many professional licensing requirements purposely take a long time to satisfy (e.g. multi-year apprenticeship requirements) to create barriers to entering those trades. Not because General Electric wants to limit the supply of electricians, but because local electricians do, and together they represent a significant voting block. Landlords and homeowners capture zoning boards to inhibit housing construction, not because any of them individually have a monopoly, but because they all want housing prices to go up at the expense of people outside the local jurisdiction who have been priced out of the local area by the zoning restrictions and thereby don't get a vote.
> If you look away for a second, there is going to be some corporation trying to re-write the tax code or do away with regulations.
Why is it that the largest corporations and most corrupt organizations are the ones asking for regulations? DMCA 1201 wasn't enacted out of popular demand. The National Association of Realtors hasn't been lobbying to relax zoning rules. The telcos are the ones who want those laws prohibiting anybody from competing with them. Certificate of Need laws don't exist for the benefit of the public.
Corrupt regulations don't exist because of oversized corporations, oversized corporations exist because of corrupt regulations. If the megacorps didn't exist, all it would take is for some small organization with contacts to a powerful legislator to get something snuck into a bill, and soon the small organization is a megacorp with the power to keep those laws on the books. There were no trillion dollar corporations in 1913 or 1791, but there was Congress, so we don't have to wonder which came first.
What you need is to constrain the legislators from passing those laws to begin with, regardless of whether they start off at the behest of a billionaire or a trade organization or just the Senator's brother-in-law.
In the US it stops at ~35. Lets go all the way to 100%.
> Then that hundred million dollars collects interest every year going forward.
The progressive capital gains taxes also need to go up to 100%.
>Corporations have more money than any individual, but the largest ones are publicly traded, so that would still be the case even if no individual shareholder had a lot of wealth. Because the corporation would, and its executives would thereby be in control of those resources and use them to capture the government.
That is why we have monopoly laws. The point isn't that corporations should not accumulate wealth, the point is that the state should not have a rival in terms of power.
>Why is it that the largest corporations and most corrupt organizations are the ones asking for regulations?
Sure, they want regulations that build a moat, they don't want regulations that reduce their wealth. I'm talking about the latter.
>What you need is to constrain the legislators from passing those laws to begin with, regardless of whether they start off at the behest of a billionaire or a trade organization or just the Senator's brother-in-law.
Yes, and campaign finance reform would reduce some of this donor/lobby culture. Fixed amount of ad-spend per candidate, no PACs, etc.
> In the US it stops at ~35. Lets go all the way to 100%.
What do you think the result of that would be? Anyone who can provide value to someone else in that tax bracket couldn't be paid for it, so they'd arrange to be compensated in some other way.
The most likely way is favors. That is not likely to reduce corruption.
> The progressive capital gains taxes also need to go up to 100%.
So now you're doing one of two things. If unrealized capital gains aren't taxed until the shares are sold (as is the case now), nobody would ever sell, because all of the money would be taken as tax. If they are, you have all the problems with trying to value a capital asset which is not being traded, and on top of that then people would establish their companies as a non-profit (since they can't keep the profits anyway) and we're back to compensation as favors.
> That is why we have monopoly laws.
But how do you enforce them once there is an incumbent monopolist using its power to corrupt the system? That is the problem already, you need some solution to it.
> The point isn't that corporations should not accumulate wealth, the point is that the state should not have a rival in terms of power.
That seems like a bad thing. Then what is the check on the state if it becomes authoritarian? All concentrated power is bad, not just corporations.
> Sure, they want regulations that build a moat, they don't want regulations that reduce their wealth. I'm talking about the latter.
They're more than willing to pay their lawyers to draft something which claims to be the latter and is actually the former. That is how the majority of such regulations are enacted. They don't call it the "reduce competition in telecommunications act" now do they?
> Yes, and campaign finance reform would reduce some of this donor/lobby culture. Fixed amount of ad-spend per candidate, no PACs, etc.
This was never really the problem. The reason politicians are beholden to Google or Apple isn't just that the company buys ads, it's that the company buys ad networks, and YouTube, and chooses which apps to evict which controls what constituents see and hear. A corporation can spend money lobbying but it can just as well spend money buying a major media outlet or social media site.
What you need to do is constrain the government from having the power to pass laws that constrain competition. Because otherwise they will. Politicians will never be angels, the best they can be is the subjects of the people instead of their rulers.
I'm actually shocked no one is arguing with you about your first two sentences. Capitalism will always have one lucky or unscrupulous company after another swallowing the smaller players.
you have 5 equal companies producing widgets. One of the companies has their building near a freeway, and one day a fully loaded truck crashes through a railing and impacts their building, causing a fire and lots of damage. Sure, they have insurance or whatever, but that company's customers don't care about that, they needed those widgets this week. Luckily one of the other four companies has them in stock and they can fill their order elsewhere. That company they filled the order with now has more capital, perhaps they hire a new employee or buy additional tools or machines. Now they can out-compete the other four, for whatever reason, QC, price, etc. The former company might be unable to keep up with the 3+1 other companies on the same playing field, so may sell to one of the other four, but only the latter company in the above example may have the money available to buy.
This is all simplified and nitpicking what i am saying is futile, because the point is - it doesn't matter how many companies are competing, nothing is in equilibrium, and this doesn't even get in to active sabotage or espionage. A lucky company will buy an unlucky company. Eventually you'll end up with 3 or fewer companies when there used to be dozens or even hundreds.
The end goal of a company is to be like Samsung, General Electric, Sony, etc - make everything, sell everything, own everything. A company being lucky for a few quarters even gets to spend money lobbying for preferential regulations that prevent further competitors from entering the market!
I don't have a solution, because there is a compelling argument to be made for huge companies being able to provide superior quality, price, whatever because of scales of economy, and it just takes one bright lawyer at a multinational to say "but if you break us up it will accelerate climate change because of x, y, z issues we have solved by fact of owning everything!"
Limiting personal wealth to 10-100 million dollars, even "on paper", might prevent this, but that would require global cooperation. I think the upside that things would gradually become more affordable would be a good selling point - if all companies are operating with the understanding the shareholders, owners, etc have a hard ceiling on how much value they can extract from the endeavor...
> The former company might be unable to keep up with the 3+1 other companies on the same playing field, so may sell to one of the other four, but only the latter company in the above example may have the money available to buy.
Your assumption is that companies can be destroyed but not created, which isn't true. The way prevent monopolies, then, is to make it as easy as possible to create new companies. There is no monopoly if five new companies are created for every two the incumbent buys or destroys.
> Limiting personal wealth to 10-100 million dollars, even "on paper", might prevent this
This has really nothing to do with it. Google is a public company. It could easily be just as big without any single individual owning more than $10M in shares.
> A company being lucky for a few quarters even gets to spend money lobbying for preferential regulations that prevent further competitors from entering the market!
and i disagree that a company can get as big as google if everyone involved was wealthcapped at $10mm. There'd be no real reason to seek ever-higher profits, especially if every company was forced to abide these rules.
as an aside, isn't it weird that during the high fuel prices in the last 4 years the fuel producing companies have made record profits? I don't actually think it's weird. It is telling. I bet it's supply and demand, though.
> and i disagree that a company can get as big as google if everyone involved was wealthcapped at $10mm. There'd be no real reason to seek ever-higher profits, especially if every company was forced to abide these rules.
As it is many of these companies are predominantly owned by index funds and pension funds, i.e. the retirement savings of ordinary people, with a net worth of e.g. $200,000 rather than $10,000,000. But they'd rather it be $250,000, wouldn't they? So the incentive remains.
> as an aside, isn't it weird that during the high fuel prices in the last 4 years the fuel producing companies have made record profits?
That's not weird, it's how supply and demand works. When demand is higher than supply, anyone who can provide supply makes a lot of money. That's the incentive for anyone who can to increase the amount of supply they can provide, until the price comes back down and increasing supply is no longer profitable.
But OPEC is a cartel, and cartels artificially constrain supply. This is why monopolies are bad.
I don't think social or economic ideologies can exist in isolation. I think its a constant push/pull between different versions, interpretations and combinations of them, interacting, evolving, changing all the time. Some of it driven by the state apparatus, some by emergent group behavior and/or public sentiment via the participants in the local and global economy. It could just be my uneducated brain but I've always had a nagging feeling that all of this (macro-level economics and polices/programs) is a lot of hot-air and people just hand-waving exceptions away to push their own agenda.
> Same thing with Google Ads, often your account will get suspended for no sane reason and you need an insider to reactivate it, or you're starting from scratch.
Yep. Absurd and completely common. There is pretty much no one to reach out to otherwise. Lost an account with several thousand dollars in it this way. I consider this straight up theft, and it's been like this for a long time.
Lawsuit will get that back. Companies are supposed to behave sanely because they know if they don't the court will force them to and it's a lot more trouble. But we don't sue companies any more, so they can do whatever.
It isn’t really practical to sue a large company with essentially infinite resources that can drag out something for years, and can always turn around and say “you violated TOS” or some other spurious reason that will get them out of it.
I’m not trying to be dismissive, but just go search online for google support threads of people dealing with the exact same issue I had - it’s common and no amount of lol law is going to deal with it short of serious consequences. A thousand individuals suing for a thousand dollars isn’t going to move that needle, like at all.
> Appealing only sends you through a kafkaesque circle of hell of support staff who are unable to answer any questions or fix anything.
This is strange to me in that you're implying there is actually staff. Are you actually having a human employed by Google acting in the role of support that cannot help solve the issue?
>> Are you actually having a human employed by Google acting in the role of support that cannot help solve the issue?
That is exactly what happened to my coworker.
She bought a Pixel phone from the Google Store and it got lost in shipping. Shipment tracking showed it arriving at the carrier's hub and never leaving for a month.
She called customer service and the first tier workers followed a script that was essentially "apologize and ask the customer to check back later".
After many missed "it should start moving again by $DATE" promises, she was able to get the case escalated to Tier 2 workers. They said they had the ability to create a replacement order, but there was no available inventory in the phone color she had originally ordered. They also had no answer about how to prevent a possible replacement order from shipping the same way and potentially getting stuck.
Finally she was able to get the case escalated to Tier 3 support. The tier 3 worker created a replacement order with an upgraded phone compared to the original order and ensured it would ship from a different warehouse than the original order that got lost.
All this took six weeks and many frustrating hours on the phone for her. And this was for an order directly from the Google Store website.
of which party in this problem? seems like contacting the carrier would have been more productive. contacting Googs about a delayed package seems like the wrong direction to follow. i realize this verges on victim blaming, but just trying to suggest other methods of problem solving.
Legally the customer has no relationship with the carrier.
They did not choose how the package would be shipped, which carrier would be used, or pay the carrier to ship it.
All of those decisions and the payment to the carrier were made by the seller (Google), not the customer. Thus Google had all responsibility in ensuring the shipment reached the customer.
If Google had failed to pay the carrier the correct shipping cost, or had packed the box poorly such that the item was damaged in transit, would it be the customer's fault?
Similarly, if the carrier mishandled the package and it was lost or arrived damaged, would it be the customer's fault?
The customer deals with the seller whom they paid, not with third-parties. If the seller took the money they ensure the customer gets what they paid for or they lose reputation and go out of business.
Right. If the operators of this service are slick about it, they'll copy the model of a lot of attorneys who sell access to city hall/DA's office/regulatory boards/etc. You don't frame it as getting the employer to do something outside the scope of their job any more than an advocate is telling the city council to grant a permit that shouldn't be granted. They're just "drawing the employee's attention to some important facts", as two friends might over dinner, and the employee can apply the usual rules.
The direct compensation to the employee does look a little bad, but then this isn't bribery if the employee is just doing their job. It has the appearance of impropriety but maybe not the legal force of a bribery charge, tortious interference, or similar.
These companies have on the order of 100k employees. It's the job of maybe 0.01% of them to deal with these issues. For the vast majority, a random account having been suspended going to be in scope of their work.
It's going to be quite hard to spin this as "just doing my job" rather than "just fraudulently misusing company resources for personal gain".
There's an internal support channel for employees to get things taken care of, it's supposed to be for friends/family you personally know. I'm pretty sure it's against the rules to take money for it. I had to use it to get myself unbanned because I made a spammy looking instagram name, hah.
