32 ms·

Once private companies have a FOIA of their own that applies to their internal communication I'd be happy to examine the exemptions in the two statutes and how

by wfo 11y ago

Once private companies have a FOIA of their own that applies to their internal communication I'd be happy to examine the exemptions in the two statutes and how they compare. But for now it's so disgustingly false to claim that companies are less accountable than government that it's hard to believe such a claim is not intentionally dishonest.

Kalium 11y ago
First, that's not any claim of mine, so please be nice. Second, my point was that FOIA doesn't bring as much transparency as you might hope. Third, the question of accountability is two-fold: to whom and to what extent? Governments and companies are accountable to different groups and to different degrees. But just as the government of Brunei is not accountable to a randomly selected American, a company of which you are neither customer nor shareholder is not accountable to you. Given that companies rely more on consent that governments, the degree of accountability to shareholders is perhaps greater. Thus I submit that measuring accountability purely in degrees is... incomplete.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Florida's Sunshine Laws [1] do provide a very high amount of transparency, and are a model that should be replicated across the US. [1] http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/DC0B20B7DC22B7418525791B006A54E4 http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/DC0B20B7DC22B741852...
- wfo 11y ago
  It wasn't directed at you, I'm sorry if it came out that way: my claim about transparency was a relative one and not an absolute one and in fact I agree with your perspective that transparency even in government isn't as good as it could be in an absolute sense (in some cases, of course); it just doesn't have any bearing the point I was responding to, which is a direct comparison between public sector and private sector. And very few top-level employees of very large publicly held companies consider themselves accountable to a very tiny elite group of wealthy shareholders. I don't think that this is what people mean when they use the word 'accountable' though. If you want to stretch the use of the word that far, you could say everyone is equally accountable because they are accountable to themselves, or religious people are more accountable because they consider themselves accountable to God while Atheists don't. I think it's fair to assume when someone uses the word 'accountability' in this context they mean to society as a whole. I would also reject the notion that companies rely on consent more so than governments; they are dictatorships run top-down by generally a single manager who commands his underlings. Companies and governments are enormous bureaucratic organizations which have enormous impact on the societies in which they operate and the people that live in them. Government has checks and balances and voting and are required to publish information about their operations and are open to being changed by the general public (through voting). Companies are secret private dictatorships which do as they please without regard for the wishes or needs or desires of the general public (only when those wishes happen to coincide with a profit motive; a rare happy accident) and publish nothing about their operations by design. I think it's quite fair to make the claim about relative transparency/accountability, that governments beat companies always; governments are required to try, companies do not even pretend to try (in fact the most profitable companies actively refuse to try). I think you have a very good point about how transparent this minimal transparency is in government, but the fact that it even exists means governments beat companies hands down every time.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Companies rely on the consent of employees and the consent of customers. Many governments are not so nice about this. The dictatorships of companies are ones that people voluntarily subject themselves to. That is consent - to maintain otherwise is dadaist absurdity. Beyond that, how do you define "society as a whole"? Where do you draw the line? Is Joe's Local Coffee Shack accountable to random fishermen in Indonesia? Is WalMart? To what extent should a country that you are neither a citizen of or a resident of be accountable to you? How is this different from shareholders and non-shareholders? Governments are not required to try. Many don't. Publicly traded firms pretty universally are required to provide a degree of transparency to everyone. They also provide greater transparency to shareholders and are very directly accountable to shareholders... who can and have organized takeovers of companies. Perhaps you say "accountable" and mean "I, personally, have power over whatever organization is convenient"?
    - wfo 11y ago
      No, companies rely on forcing obedience from their employees through the threat to remove healthcare and livelihood. They rely on forcing compliance from their customers by hiring a team of highly trained psychologists who specialize in propaganda and brainwashing to try and subconsciously trick people into purchasing your product. They rely on anticompetitive business practices: forcing out competition, or competeting so hard that margins are so thin for everyone that there is no choice but "the lowest cost in dollars" which generally comes at the highest cost in social good or human rights. You're describing some utopia where people work for a company because they want to and have many choices of employer. This isn't the case for the vast majority of people. Saying a company gets your consent because you continue to work for them is like saying a rapist gets your consent because you didn't punch him hard enough when he assaulted you. It's not dadist at all, it's honest and practical. The alternative dishonest -- to perpetuate the myth that draws a hard line between 'consensual' actions -- those which are forced by our economic system -- and 'voluntary' ones like which brand of a product do I purchase -- those which don't matter. Society is defined exactly in the way that you know it should be. Asking whether or 'society' for Joe's local coffee shop includes Indonesian fisherman is simultaneously saying you understand what society is and that you refuse to admit you know what it is. It's intentionally misunderstanding others for a rhetorical purpose, i.e. arguing in bad faith and you know it. Cut it out. Western democratic governments are required to try. You're right dictatorial regimes operate more like large corporations and can do as they wish -- they are possibly even worse because they tend to include death camps as well. So if when I say 'government is generally more transparent than private industry' your response is 'what about the Syrian government', well, fine, you've made my point. Publicly traded firms (a minority of 'industry') are "accountable" to a tiny group of the wealthy hyper-elite in that they have to publish very specific technical details about their accounting. That's quite a stretch.

by wfo 11y ago

Kalium 11y ago

First, that's not any claim of mine, so please be nice. Second, my point was that FOIA doesn't bring as much transparency as you might hope. Third, the question of accountability is two-fold: to whom and to what extent? Governments and companies are accountable to different groups and to different degrees. But just as the government of Brunei is not accountable to a randomly selected American, a company of which you are neither customer nor shareholder is not accountable to you. Given that companies rely more on consent that governments, the degree of accountability to shareholders is perhaps greater. Thus I submit that measuring accountability purely in degrees is... incomplete.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Florida's Sunshine Laws [1] do provide a very high amount of transparency, and are a model that should be replicated across the US. [1] http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/DC0B20B7DC22B7418525791B006A54E4 http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/DC0B20B7DC22B741852...
wfo 11y ago
It wasn't directed at you, I'm sorry if it came out that way: my claim about transparency was a relative one and not an absolute one and in fact I agree with your perspective that transparency even in government isn't as good as it could be in an absolute sense (in some cases, of course); it just doesn't have any bearing the point I was responding to, which is a direct comparison between public sector and private sector. And very few top-level employees of very large publicly held companies consider themselves accountable to a very tiny elite group of wealthy shareholders. I don't think that this is what people mean when they use the word 'accountable' though. If you want to stretch the use of the word that far, you could say everyone is equally accountable because they are accountable to themselves, or religious people are more accountable because they consider themselves accountable to God while Atheists don't. I think it's fair to assume when someone uses the word 'accountability' in this context they mean to society as a whole. I would also reject the notion that companies rely on consent more so than governments; they are dictatorships run top-down by generally a single manager who commands his underlings. Companies and governments are enormous bureaucratic organizations which have enormous impact on the societies in which they operate and the people that live in them. Government has checks and balances and voting and are required to publish information about their operations and are open to being changed by the general public (through voting). Companies are secret private dictatorships which do as they please without regard for the wishes or needs or desires of the general public (only when those wishes happen to coincide with a profit motive; a rare happy accident) and publish nothing about their operations by design. I think it's quite fair to make the claim about relative transparency/accountability, that governments beat companies always; governments are required to try, companies do not even pretend to try (in fact the most profitable companies actively refuse to try). I think you have a very good point about how transparent this minimal transparency is in government, but the fact that it even exists means governments beat companies hands down every time.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Companies rely on the consent of employees and the consent of customers. Many governments are not so nice about this. The dictatorships of companies are ones that people voluntarily subject themselves to. That is consent - to maintain otherwise is dadaist absurdity. Beyond that, how do you define "society as a whole"? Where do you draw the line? Is Joe's Local Coffee Shack accountable to random fishermen in Indonesia? Is WalMart? To what extent should a country that you are neither a citizen of or a resident of be accountable to you? How is this different from shareholders and non-shareholders? Governments are not required to try. Many don't. Publicly traded firms pretty universally are required to provide a degree of transparency to everyone. They also provide greater transparency to shareholders and are very directly accountable to shareholders... who can and have organized takeovers of companies. Perhaps you say "accountable" and mean "I, personally, have power over whatever organization is convenient"?
  - wfo 11y ago
    No, companies rely on forcing obedience from their employees through the threat to remove healthcare and livelihood. They rely on forcing compliance from their customers by hiring a team of highly trained psychologists who specialize in propaganda and brainwashing to try and subconsciously trick people into purchasing your product. They rely on anticompetitive business practices: forcing out competition, or competeting so hard that margins are so thin for everyone that there is no choice but "the lowest cost in dollars" which generally comes at the highest cost in social good or human rights. You're describing some utopia where people work for a company because they want to and have many choices of employer. This isn't the case for the vast majority of people. Saying a company gets your consent because you continue to work for them is like saying a rapist gets your consent because you didn't punch him hard enough when he assaulted you. It's not dadist at all, it's honest and practical. The alternative dishonest -- to perpetuate the myth that draws a hard line between 'consensual' actions -- those which are forced by our economic system -- and 'voluntary' ones like which brand of a product do I purchase -- those which don't matter. Society is defined exactly in the way that you know it should be. Asking whether or 'society' for Joe's local coffee shop includes Indonesian fisherman is simultaneously saying you understand what society is and that you refuse to admit you know what it is. It's intentionally misunderstanding others for a rhetorical purpose, i.e. arguing in bad faith and you know it. Cut it out. Western democratic governments are required to try. You're right dictatorial regimes operate more like large corporations and can do as they wish -- they are possibly even worse because they tend to include death camps as well. So if when I say 'government is generally more transparent than private industry' your response is 'what about the Syrian government', well, fine, you've made my point. Publicly traded firms (a minority of 'industry') are "accountable" to a tiny group of the wealthy hyper-elite in that they have to publish very specific technical details about their accounting. That's quite a stretch.