5 ms·

Are you suggesting google doesn't employ people with guns? Are you suggesting google and the government are fundamentally separate entities? Are you suggesting

by wfo 11y ago

Are you suggesting google doesn't employ people with guns? Are you suggesting google and the government are fundamentally separate entities? Are you suggesting the government does not have access to everything google has access to? And are you suggesting non-governmental agencies can't employ physical force? Like the groups of violent criminals used to destroy the pro-union movement many years ago or organized crime organizations to name a few examples? Are you suggesting if Google doesn't like someone it cannot outsource the violence to other organizations like the FBI by reporting appropriately? Are you suggesting all kinds of force are irrelevant compared to the most clumsy and inconsequential and most unimportant type of force used in our part of the world, physical force? Because any of those suggestions, all of which you seem to imply by your statement I would take issue with. The last being the most important. The platitudes suggesting anything a corporation does, no matter how powerful, is okay since it can't employ physical force, while anything the government does is wrong because it can are excellent fodder to trick children into accepting Libertarianism but are otherwise mostly ineffective.

magicGLASSman 11y ago
Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Or are you saying that if you dislike your goverment polices like unjust wars or surveillance state you don't have to pay taxes for them? "children" uses ad hominem attacks. Force is great when the force is directed against dissenting views, but not so cool when your views are in the minority.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  > Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Look up the concepts of (de facto) monopolies, network effects, and externalities.
  - magicGLASSman 11y ago
    I know the concept very well. Of course their are advantages to using a service that everyone else is using, but it comes down to what you value more your privacy or the inconvenience of a smaller user group/paying a fee. I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
      > I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. That depends on what you mean by that. I think most people care very much about the long-term effects that lack of privacy has on societies. They just are uninformed and therefore don't see those future costs, which is why they make a flawed tradeoff against their own interests. > My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think. So, if everyone is on facebook, what choice do you have in reaching an audience? If google started manipulating the opinions of the majority of society against your interests, what choice would you have? ...
      - magicGLASSman 11y ago
        >They just are uninformed and therefore don't see those future costs Who is educating these people? organization who have an interest in keeping the masses ignorant to the effects of privacy. >which is why they make a flawed tradeoff against their own interests. this is a common argument it hear, do you not think it is elitist to think that you know better then the common people? Hell, maybe you do, but I bet 10,000 other people also think they know better too. I am going to trust 100 billion micro decisions everyday rather then some academic in an ivory tower who thinks they know the will of the people. >if everyone is on facebook, what choice do you have in reaching an audience? Come on, There are many more channels to reach your audience, you are on one right now. Hacker new knows nothing about me other then my username and password. >If google started manipulating the opinions of the majority of society against your interests, what choice would you have? duckduckgo, bing, reddit, facebook, TV, or Family people get create their opinions based on a huge number of inputs. The problem is that people want to be told they are right so they only consume things that reinforce their opinion (confirmation bias) but that is a whole other road.

by wfo 11y ago

magicGLASSman 11y ago

Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Or are you saying that if you dislike your goverment polices like unjust wars or surveillance state you don't have to pay taxes for them? "children" uses ad hominem attacks. Force is great when the force is directed against dissenting views, but not so cool when your views are in the minority.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
> Are you suggesting that people can't use alternative services just by typing a address into their browser? Look up the concepts of (de facto) monopolies, network effects, and externalities.
- magicGLASSman 11y ago
  I know the concept very well. Of course their are advantages to using a service that everyone else is using, but it comes down to what you value more your privacy or the inconvenience of a smaller user group/paying a fee. I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
    > I think the majority of people don't care about their privacy and would rather make that trade off right now. That depends on what you mean by that. I think most people care very much about the long-term effects that lack of privacy has on societies. They just are uninformed and therefore don't see those future costs, which is why they make a flawed tradeoff against their own interests. > My core argument is that you still have a choice with free markets but with goverment if your views aren't the majority you are at the whims of group think. So, if everyone is on facebook, what choice do you have in reaching an audience? If google started manipulating the opinions of the majority of society against your interests, what choice would you have? ...
    - magicGLASSman 11y ago
      >They just are uninformed and therefore don't see those future costs Who is educating these people? organization who have an interest in keeping the masses ignorant to the effects of privacy. >which is why they make a flawed tradeoff against their own interests. this is a common argument it hear, do you not think it is elitist to think that you know better then the common people? Hell, maybe you do, but I bet 10,000 other people also think they know better too. I am going to trust 100 billion micro decisions everyday rather then some academic in an ivory tower who thinks they know the will of the people. >if everyone is on facebook, what choice do you have in reaching an audience? Come on, There are many more channels to reach your audience, you are on one right now. Hacker new knows nothing about me other then my username and password. >If google started manipulating the opinions of the majority of society against your interests, what choice would you have? duckduckgo, bing, reddit, facebook, TV, or Family people get create their opinions based on a huge number of inputs. The problem is that people want to be told they are right so they only consume things that reinforce their opinion (confirmation bias) but that is a whole other road.