I read the text. Toward the end, the author points out how things like patents and power of incumbents shows we won’t be able to beat them by competing with them. Author shows the solution is to invent something new like Microsoft did with desktops (vs minicomputers) or Apple with smartphones (vs desktops). Aside from being astronomically unlikely, most of the people that are doing this are VC-funded companies intending to go public (become the next evil) or sell out to an evil company. Far as competing with Facebook, WhatApp, Instagram, and SnapChat are examples of how piles of money can ensure the next big thing can be controlled or subverted in its purpose.
I’m still for regulations protecting data privacy and computer security. When the public cares, some fundamental protections should be easier to pull off that way than the above. :)
Yup. There is a reason I (the author) did the shrug gesture when asked how to fix it. You are right; I’m not sure how the seesaw tips without a trendsetter who’s prepared to show people that there is a better way, and possibly lose a dumptruck full of money doing so in pursuit of the better world. It’s possible that the company who will demonstrate that it’s possible to make services which don’t require access to everything will be Apple, who have a dumptruck full of money they can afford to lose on this, but they’re problematic in other ways. I wish (as the talk says) that I had an easy, glib answer. But I do think that the more people talk about this, the more the idea will get out there that it’s not just “opt out” versus “give up everything to Facebook” but that some better way can at least potentially exist.