Basically this essay is about the issue that many internet services become monopolies and the negative effect of this phenomenon. The author argues that we have to create pro-market regulations and models of development (e.g., favors the creation of services that are open, like email, instead of one closed, like Whatsapp) that favors the creation of competition between different players.
I used to think that way. But the other day, I set up a mailserver (dovecot + postfix) on a DigitalOcean droplet and a domain I own. With proper configuration (SPF, DKIM), I had no problem with delivery of the mail I sent from it so far.
You will run into issues sending email to services that run very aggressive IP based spam filtering w/ white-lists. AT&T (att.net, bellsouth.net) is one example of a company that does this. They subscribe to the UCEPROTECT blacklists, which will sometimes include all of DO in a bad neighbor list. The only way to not get on this list is to pay UCEPROTECT. If you don't pay then you will need to contact mail admins at AT&T (and others) to get added to whitelists. When you move to a knew droplet and get a new IP you will have to do it all again.
I had looked into moving to a service where I could reserve and IP and assign it to an instance (vultr.com) in order to keep a consistent IP across instance migrations. I eventually decided it wasn't worth the time and signed up for a managed email account with runbox.com (they have the best family deal).
And just because you said: „reputable spam blacklists....“ I have to tell you the bad news:-)
UCEPROTECT is and was never a problem for mailservers with a good reputation.
If you are running a mailrelay, all that matters for delivery success is reputation.
That means you have to make sure your system can‘t be abused for spamming and you don‘t spam.
Doing so will ensure that your IP will never show up in UCEPROTECT Level 1.
Having a good reputation also means, you have to look at the reputation of your provider before signing up.
If your ISP is activeley preventing abuse originating from their networks and ranges, and acting quick on abuse, then you should also never run in trouble with UCEPROTECT‘s Levels 2 and 3.
It‘s really that easy.
But if all what matters to you chosing an ISP is the price, you don‘t have to wonder about the consequences.
You know: Lay down with the dogs, stand up with fleas...
HN readers voice real concerns over these issues regularly. For the Americans ready to take them seriously, there’s a long road of dusty books ahead. But we’re short on time so I’ll save you the hassle the only way I know how:
An exchange doesn't favor the seller - it favors both parties for they wish to rid of what they want less in exchange for what they want more.
But that even isn't the point - it doesn't matter who might be favored - what's mine is mine and it's nobody's business if I sell it or consume it or give it away.
The article is blatantly Marxist. I don't know how this rubbish ends up on HN all the time. Here are some points the author makes. Half of them are obtuse and difficult to decipher, making it hard to argue against:
- By choice, pro-competitive rules were not introduced because it was believed that they would slow down and possibly halt development. Rules were introduced regarding intellectual property and systems cracking, editorial responsibility, child protection, etc., but not in terms of user contendability and competition.
The rules that were implemented, or adapted from legacy law, have had a terrible effect on the industry. The DMCA is one of the worst laws, having an absolutely awful chilling effect on online creativeness. Even if you do think copyright is a valid construct, the DMCA's reversal of burden of proof is inexcusable. It has lead to restrictions on people modifying software running on systems they _own_, including farmers' tractors. Thank god the FCC wasn't able to censor the internet.
- control vertical online markets at a global level, also determining prices in offline markets and therefore in the rest of the economy;
Vertical integration only makes it that much harder for a large corporation to innovate. It makes it easier for an agile competitor to out-innovate and adapt to take a portion of the market.
- extract value from the intermediaries of the producers (from both the traditional categories of the nineteenth-century capital / labor conflict);
What does this mean? They extract value from the middle-men?
- govern market access through control of the platforms (based on contracts that impose their contractual strength and exploit the protection of intellectual property laws), the searchability and the order in which the offers are displayed and, in some cases, moderating comments;
Intellectual property isn't valid property, and should be severely reduced, if not completely removed.
- in some cases they collect an intermediation on a price, in others through auctions that they bail for a service that they offer and in which the offers are totally opaque;
This guy needs to name names or give examples. This is meaningless. Seriously, "auctions that they bail for a service that they offer and in which the offers are totally opaque"? Is that even English?
- benefit from network effects that reduce the cost of acquiring customers and lockin that limit contestability by any competitors;
Services have been being displaced for years. There are newer, better things replacing older things all of the time. WhatsApp and other messagers provided a useful service that cellular carriers couldn't provide with SMS.
- have a regulation that exempts them from the responsibility to control the proposed contents / offers;
This implies that they have a responsibility to advertise for competitors.
- can transfer margins from one country to another thanks to royalties on intellectual property and the absence of stable organizations in the countries where they have customers (doing a tax shopping choosing the place to pay less taxes and eroding the tax capacity of the states);
Corporate taxes shouldn't exist for this very reason. Income, property, and capital gains should be _plenty_.
- benefit from nearly-infinite scale economies, thanks to marginal costs and / or null variable costs;
Software is easier to scale, but scaling isn't infinite. At a certain point, scaling 2x is much harder than before. It's easier for small firms to scale than for large firms.
- control the performance of the activities of the value producers (capital and labor) thanks to technological tools;
"Control" apparently means whenever you provide a service.
- establish working conditions for occasional relationships with a degree of control superior to that normally existing in traditional work relationships;
What is this referring to?
- unilaterally impose non-negotiable supply conditions to professional lenders of goo...
> The article is blatantly Marxist. I don’t know how this rubbish ends up on HN all the time.
Karl Marx’s contributions to the field of economics are, to put it lightly, vast. Despite the authors’ insistence on it’s incompleteness, Marx and Engel’s 3 volumes constitute a painstakingly detailed and, as evidenced by the lack of serious refutation from the field, accurate analysis of the economic and social systems of their time.
And let’s be honest; the guy knew a thing or two about disruption.
> Consequently, those who conquer world dominance in a sector can hardly be undermined. Try telling your children to leave Whatsapp and start using Indoona. They will never do it. On Whatsapp they can interact with all their friends; sending them to Indoona would be like condemning them to a nearly desert island.
I suspect it's the children that are reading the article in more cases than not.
15 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 48.7 ms ] threadI had looked into moving to a service where I could reserve and IP and assign it to an instance (vultr.com) in order to keep a consistent IP across instance migrations. I eventually decided it wasn't worth the time and signed up for a managed email account with runbox.com (they have the best family deal).
Reputable spam blacklists use proper metrics and monetize their service via other means (e.g. spam appliances, client use service fees etc)
Registering an IP into a high trustee whitelist is an optional offer to the admins of clean mailservers and not blackmail.
See the FAQ at http://www.whitelisted.org/?go=faq
And just because you said: „reputable spam blacklists....“ I have to tell you the bad news:-) UCEPROTECT is and was never a problem for mailservers with a good reputation.
If you are running a mailrelay, all that matters for delivery success is reputation. That means you have to make sure your system can‘t be abused for spamming and you don‘t spam. Doing so will ensure that your IP will never show up in UCEPROTECT Level 1. Having a good reputation also means, you have to look at the reputation of your provider before signing up. If your ISP is activeley preventing abuse originating from their networks and ranges, and acting quick on abuse, then you should also never run in trouble with UCEPROTECT‘s Levels 2 and 3.
It‘s really that easy. But if all what matters to you chosing an ISP is the price, you don‘t have to wonder about the consequences. You know: Lay down with the dogs, stand up with fleas...
https://www.dsausa.org
And the tech committee is wonderful people with some great open stack projects in tow. Now is surely the best time in history to volunteer.
An exchange doesn't favor the seller - it favors both parties for they wish to rid of what they want less in exchange for what they want more.
But that even isn't the point - it doesn't matter who might be favored - what's mine is mine and it's nobody's business if I sell it or consume it or give it away.
- By choice, pro-competitive rules were not introduced because it was believed that they would slow down and possibly halt development. Rules were introduced regarding intellectual property and systems cracking, editorial responsibility, child protection, etc., but not in terms of user contendability and competition.
The rules that were implemented, or adapted from legacy law, have had a terrible effect on the industry. The DMCA is one of the worst laws, having an absolutely awful chilling effect on online creativeness. Even if you do think copyright is a valid construct, the DMCA's reversal of burden of proof is inexcusable. It has lead to restrictions on people modifying software running on systems they _own_, including farmers' tractors. Thank god the FCC wasn't able to censor the internet.
- control vertical online markets at a global level, also determining prices in offline markets and therefore in the rest of the economy;
Vertical integration only makes it that much harder for a large corporation to innovate. It makes it easier for an agile competitor to out-innovate and adapt to take a portion of the market.
- extract value from the intermediaries of the producers (from both the traditional categories of the nineteenth-century capital / labor conflict);
What does this mean? They extract value from the middle-men?
- govern market access through control of the platforms (based on contracts that impose their contractual strength and exploit the protection of intellectual property laws), the searchability and the order in which the offers are displayed and, in some cases, moderating comments;
Intellectual property isn't valid property, and should be severely reduced, if not completely removed.
- in some cases they collect an intermediation on a price, in others through auctions that they bail for a service that they offer and in which the offers are totally opaque;
This guy needs to name names or give examples. This is meaningless. Seriously, "auctions that they bail for a service that they offer and in which the offers are totally opaque"? Is that even English?
- benefit from network effects that reduce the cost of acquiring customers and lockin that limit contestability by any competitors;
Services have been being displaced for years. There are newer, better things replacing older things all of the time. WhatsApp and other messagers provided a useful service that cellular carriers couldn't provide with SMS.
- have a regulation that exempts them from the responsibility to control the proposed contents / offers;
This implies that they have a responsibility to advertise for competitors.
- can transfer margins from one country to another thanks to royalties on intellectual property and the absence of stable organizations in the countries where they have customers (doing a tax shopping choosing the place to pay less taxes and eroding the tax capacity of the states);
Corporate taxes shouldn't exist for this very reason. Income, property, and capital gains should be _plenty_.
- benefit from nearly-infinite scale economies, thanks to marginal costs and / or null variable costs;
Software is easier to scale, but scaling isn't infinite. At a certain point, scaling 2x is much harder than before. It's easier for small firms to scale than for large firms.
- control the performance of the activities of the value producers (capital and labor) thanks to technological tools;
"Control" apparently means whenever you provide a service.
- establish working conditions for occasional relationships with a degree of control superior to that normally existing in traditional work relationships;
What is this referring to?
- unilaterally impose non-negotiable supply conditions to professional lenders of goo...
Karl Marx’s contributions to the field of economics are, to put it lightly, vast. Despite the authors’ insistence on it’s incompleteness, Marx and Engel’s 3 volumes constitute a painstakingly detailed and, as evidenced by the lack of serious refutation from the field, accurate analysis of the economic and social systems of their time.
And let’s be honest; the guy knew a thing or two about disruption.
I suspect it's the children that are reading the article in more cases than not.