I think the empirical footing is simply seeing how companies change their businesses to adjust to consumer demands. All of the major players have shown time and time again that they adjust their products based on user behavior. The entire Lean method and deploy-measure-iterate-deploy cycle, is predicated on a feedback loop between users and products.
> If you take the stance that the government is looking out for your interests better than Google is...
making a clear implicit counterclaim that Google is looking out for my interests better than the government. But then you say this:
> The entire Lean method and deploy-measure-iterate-deploy cycle, is predicated on a feedback loop between users and products.
As someone who has done a lot of A/B testing over the course of their career, I can say with authority that this argument is completely bogus, to the point that I'm having trouble believing you're making it in good faith. A/B testing rarely has anything to do with matching the product to customer's stated preferences or looking out for their best interests. It's almost always about exploiting various quirks of psychology to increase engagement or spending, in the manner of casinos.
In fact, I'm willing to wager that A/B testing, as it's done today, probably anti-optimizes the product from the perspective of the user's (or society's) best interests (best example: Facebook and the social bubble effect, and how outrage-inducting fake news gets more clicks and engagement than nuanced real stuff)
Contrast this with the history of how well companies respond to consumer's stated preferences. A clear majority of people, when polled, say they want less corporate welfare, companies that treat the environment better, reasonable labor protections, etc.. None of these have happened to any significant degree, unless their hand was forced by (bitterly opposed) regulation.
Now, this is mostly people's own fault, because their spending habits do not match their stated preferences, and businesses follow revealed preference. But that's been my point all along: businesses cannot be trusted satisfy stated preferences. And I'm the rare consumer who does try to put my money where my mouth is, and my preferences still never translate into large-scale change. That's what I mean when I say there's no empirical footing for the claim that businesses can be trusted to look out for my interests.
A/B testing rarely has anything to do with matching the product to customer's stated preferences or looking out for their best interests.
Bull, it's explicitly about figuring out what people want to do. You can argue all day long that this can be exploited, but in the end you aren't going to take an action you don't want to without coercion. If I show you a delivery donut ad a 1AM, because you've proven 90% more likely to impulse buy a donut at 1AM and then you do it, how is that not directly correlating to your interests? Conversely if I show you a gym ad at 8AM on Tuesday because I know that's when you get out of the meeting with the fit [insert gender] person at work you've always wanted to ask out on a date, how is that not directly in your interests?
businesses follow revealed preference
Yes exactly, stated preferences are worthless. Revealed preferences are priceless. The amount of people who say one thing and do another approaches 100%.
That's what I mean when I say there's no empirical footing for the claim that businesses can be trusted to look out for my interests.
You decide what your interests are by your actions. If I see your actions and then give you more of those, by definition I am looking out for your interests.
I think what you are trying to say is:
"People make terrible decisions and it's up to the government to prevent companies from letting you make those terrible decisions."
In which case, you're implicitly arguing that people make better voting decisions than purchasing decisions and that voting decisions better reflect their true preferences. A silly idea if there ever was one. I don't think this needs a reference in 2017.
