>The point that you are so unwilling to accept is that regulations only get to be enacted if they don't hurt the corporations.
My local non-profit power company is a data point against that position. There are many others.
>Look at Texas and the winter brownouts. Their grid fails whenever it gets so cold to the point that generating energy is not lucrative.
The portions of Texas not on the ERCOT grid which are connected to the federally regulated grids preformed much better than the ERCOT grid because they have regulations, with punishments if they don't follow them, the government requires.
>And there are other ways where we can get the societal benefits without giving away power to these corrupt institutions.
> My local non-profit power company is a data point against that position.
Was "your local non-profit" responsible in the elaboration of any of the regulation? Are they in any condition to threaten the status quo? Can they disrupt the market at a global scale or are they just sticking to being a "local, non-profit" entity?
It seems we are talking about two different things. You want to defend regulatory action as a valid mechanism for societal progress. What I am saying is that these mechanisms historically only worked when the status quo could benefit (or at the very least not threatened) from it.
The problem is that I am feeling like I am arguing a strawman (regulations are always bad!) when my point is that calling for regulations for Big Tech will do jack-shit to actually solve any of the issues affecting society, and more likely than not it is just going to help Big Tech cement their dominance.
My local non-profit power company is a data point against that position. There are many others.
>Look at Texas and the winter brownouts. Their grid fails whenever it gets so cold to the point that generating energy is not lucrative.
The portions of Texas not on the ERCOT grid which are connected to the federally regulated grids preformed much better than the ERCOT grid because they have regulations, with punishments if they don't follow them, the government requires.
>And there are other ways where we can get the societal benefits without giving away power to these corrupt institutions.
How is the USPS corrupt to the scale you imply?