3 ms·

> I disagree completely. If corporations do not make a stand on surveillance and censorship then official demands are only going to get more brazen and receive

by a3n 11y ago

> I disagree completely. If corporations do not make a stand on surveillance and censorship then official demands are only going to get more brazen and receive less public attention and scrutiny. You're describing a world where corporations represent you, the consumer. But you're not a constituent of the corporation, you're a resource. Corporations want to keep you happy in the same way that dairy farmers want to keep cows happy, so they'll keep on producing money or milk. The constituents are shareholders. The ones representing your interests are the elected parts of the government. Which, I know, is laughable in the US. But still, corporations are not it. Your comments on open source and consumer counter pressure describe something hopeful.

oneweekwonder 11y ago
> The ones representing your interests are the elected parts of the government. Which, I know, is laughable in the US. But still, corporations are not it. a bit off-topic, but is there a country that is not laughable and the general public actually trust and believe the government have their needs in mind?
- anon4 11y ago
  (Parts of) America, before it was run over by illegal immigrants from Europe and Britain.
fauigerzigerk 11y ago
>You're describing a world where corporations represent you Not at all. I'm describing a world of partially shared mutual interest. >Corporations want to keep you happy in the same way that dairy farmers want to keep cows happy No. I have a voluntary business relationship with some corporations. Cows do not have a voluntary business relationship with farmers. Corporations cannot milk me against my will or slaughter me when I stop giving milk. All they can do is try to trade with me. My relationship with the people of the country I am allowed to vote in is not voluntary. It's a result of the birth lottery. I don't even share many intersts with them as I don't live there and it's not a global superpower. That said, it's not my intention to deny one fundamental fact: The extent of my influence on corporations as a consumer and as a shareholder depends exclusively on my wealth. My influence on elected politicians is much more complex and there is at least some chance of my being human to count for something regardless of wealth. Fundamental rights to privacy cannot be based on wealth, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our shared interests with corporations where they exist.

by a3n 11y ago

oneweekwonder 11y ago

> The ones representing your interests are the elected parts of the government. Which, I know, is laughable in the US. But still, corporations are not it. a bit off-topic, but is there a country that is not laughable and the general public actually trust and believe the government have their needs in mind?

anon4 11y ago
(Parts of) America, before it was run over by illegal immigrants from Europe and Britain.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago

>You're describing a world where corporations represent you Not at all. I'm describing a world of partially shared mutual interest. >Corporations want to keep you happy in the same way that dairy farmers want to keep cows happy No. I have a voluntary business relationship with some corporations. Cows do not have a voluntary business relationship with farmers. Corporations cannot milk me against my will or slaughter me when I stop giving milk. All they can do is try to trade with me. My relationship with the people of the country I am allowed to vote in is not voluntary. It's a result of the birth lottery. I don't even share many intersts with them as I don't live there and it's not a global superpower. That said, it's not my intention to deny one fundamental fact: The extent of my influence on corporations as a consumer and as a shareholder depends exclusively on my wealth. My influence on elected politicians is much more complex and there is at least some chance of my being human to count for something regardless of wealth. Fundamental rights to privacy cannot be based on wealth, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our shared interests with corporations where they exist.