Bookmarked Have you heard about Silicon Valley’s unpaid research and development department? It’s called the EU. (by Aral Balkan)

This is very interesting reasoning. Especially because I end up in a lot of conversations on the flip side of this: government client saying they’d ‘like to use alternatives to big tech’ but ‘can’t’ because none are visible to them. Also my sense of public procurement procedures is that they are currently incapable of detecting such options and lifting them to the front.

Looking at this way of investing, also means public institutions will more easily stay out of conflicts with e.g. market regulations.

Today, the EU acts like an unpaid research and development department for Silicon Valley. We fund startups, which, if they’re successful, get sold to companies in Silicon Valley. If they fail, the European taxpayer foots the bill.
….
The EC must stop funding startups and invest in stayups instead. Invest €5M in ten stayups in each area where we want ethical alternatives. Unlike a startup, when stayups are successful, they don’t exit. They can’t get bought by Google or Facebook. They remain sustainable European not-for-profits working to deliver technology as a social good.

Aral Balkan

2 reactions on “”

  1. Have you heard about Silicon Valley’s unpaid research and development department? It’s called the EU. by Aral Balkan (ar.al)

    You… yes you.
    Who should you thank for Facebook’s Libra?
    “One of the UK’s leading privacy researchers” University College London The DECODE project And, if you’re an EU citizen who pays their taxes,
    You. Surprised? Don’t be.
    None of this was unforeseen Today, the EU acts like an unpaid research and development department for Silicon Valley. We fund startups, which, if they’re successful, get sold to companies in Silicon Valley.

    via Tom ZylstraI have used the phare, “I’m busy”, in the past. It’s not part of West Indian culture so I must have learned this way of signalling one’s worth from living in the USA. I’m not sure when I stopped trying to be busy.

    Imagine if we were to temporarily step outside of our busyness and examine it from the outside. Why are we so damn obsessed with doing stuff all the time? Busy — is this the way we want to live and define our lives? Given the objectively absolute fact that we are only here for a limited time, is busyness even a rational benchmark for quantifying the value of our existence? To what extent do we ‘choose’ to be busy — or to what extent are we caught up in a toxic cultural motif or script?Why are we busy? by James Shelly

    The Internet Judgment Machine is a forever machine, not unlike, the Terminator. Mistakes are forever punishable. Forgiveness is becoming a word with no meaning. The Intenet never forgets is a problem.

    Kashuv had planned to attend Harvard in fall 2020 after completing a gap year, but shortly after his past racist comments became public, administrators advised him that his acceptance could be withdrawn “if you engage or have engaged in behavior that brings into question your honesty, maturity, or moral character.” He was asked to provide a full explanation for his behavior, which he did. He also emailed Harvard’s Office of Diversity Education and Support, vowing to make amends. This office told him “we appreciate your thoughtful reflections and look forward to connecting with you upon your matriculation in the fall of 2020.”
    Alas, it was not to be: The dean of admissions decided to rescind Kashuv’s admissionHarvard University Cancels Kyle Kashuv by Robby Soave on Reason

    These are the same cohort who routinely fall off cliffs and building and get mauled by wild animals while attempting to capture the best selfie.

    In a post written last year, I explained why it’s a mistake to give special credence to the policy views of victims of horrible tragedies. Surviving a school shooting, or some other awful event, doesn’t give you any special insight into the moral and policy questions at stake. Survivors deserve empathy and respect—but not deference to their policy views, except in rare instances where they have genuine expertise on the subject. Why We Shouldn’t Treat Survivors and Victims as Authorities on Policy Issues by Ilya Somin on Reason

    Western society is headed toward a place where we are trading real freedoms in exchange for perceived freedoms.

    The ban was implemented following an ASA review which concluded that stereotypical depictions pave the way for “real-world psychological, physical, economic, social and political harm for individuals and groups.”
    …
    Gender stereotypes “constrict people’s choices,” says the ASA review. Yet the ban itself does precisely that, as it limits companies from advertising their products as they see fit and shields consumers from ideas associated with wrongthink.The U.K. Has Banned ‘Harmful Gender Stereotypes’ in Advertisements by Billy Binnion on Reason

    I’m starting to see a pattern to these articles. The theme seems to be “judgment”; judging others against one’s moral standard and trying to “force” them to live by that standard. It’s a dangerous trend.

    In addition to bans, fees, and moral preening, anti-plastic bag advocates have a new trick up their sleeve for inspiring you to bring a reusable tote on your next trip to the grocery store: shame.
    Two weeks ago, East West Market, a grocery store in Vancouver, Canada, rolled out a new line of single-use plastic bags for customers who don’t bring bags to the store. The bags feature less than flattering business names, including “The Colon Care Co-Op,” “Into the Weird Adult Video Emporium,” and “Dr. Toew’s Wart Ointment Wholesale.”Anti-Plastic Bag Activists Have a New Weapon: Shame by Christian Britschgi.

    Share:

    Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
    Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

    Like this:

    Like Loading…


    Related

  2. The Guardian writes about how left wing economics seems to be landing on their own economic narrative and proposition. Mostly until now leftwing economic policies aim(ed) at shaving off some of the rough edges of the rightwing ones. Making them rear-guard skirmishes almost by definition.
    Last Monday in a conversation on government and markets, I remarked it baffles me that most discussions seem to pretend there’s only government task / public ownership on one end, and (unregulated) free market on the other end. As if there isn’t an entire spectrum in between of structures, legal entities and tools that deal with ownership, control, (immoral) externalising of costs, and influence in very different ways. Aral Balkan’s recent proposal is an example of such alternatives. That false dichotomy is a ruse it seems to put any suggestion of change into a default defensive position. Which is where left wing economic politics has been for decades.
    Our economic structures, as any structure humans come up with, are tools, not a force of nature, and as such can be done away with when we find we want different tools. Now definitely seems to be such a time, in the light of global challenges and many people feeling disempowered in the face of those challenges. A search for novel agency is on.
    The Guardian posits that this emerging leftwing economic approach is new. The article quotes Joe Guinan and Martin O’Neill saying “If we want to live in democratic societies, then we need to … allow communities to shape their local economies …. It is no longer good enough to see the economy as some kind of separate technocratic domain in which the central values of a democratic society somehow do not apply.”
    This is hardly new as economics, maybe as leftwing position. Karl Polanyi (died 1964) posited much the same thing, that economic structures need to serve communities, and warned that for most of the 20th century “Instead of the economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system.” Leading an article in Renewable Matters from a year before this Guardian article to ask “What if Karl Polanyi was right?”
    Read The new left economics: how a network of thinkers is transforming capitalism (the Guardian)

    Christine Berry, a young British freelance academic, is one of the network’s central figures. “We’re stripping economics back to basics,” she says. “We want economics to ask: ‘Who owns these resources? Who has power in this company?’ Conventional economic discourse obfuscates these questions, to the benefit of those with power.”
    The new leftwing economics wants to see the redistribution of economic power, so that it is held by everyone – just as political power is held by everyone in a healthy democracy. This redistribution of power could involve employees taking ownership of part of every company; or local politicians reshaping their city’s economy to favour local, ethical businesses over large corporations; or national politicians making co-operatives a capitalist norm.

Comments are closed.

Mentions