4 ms·

So now it's at the point where we need to be running our own self-hosted servers? As a European I find it weird that America land of Silicon Valley does not fig

So now it's at the point where we need to be running our own self-hosted servers? As a European I find it weird that America land of Silicon Valley does not fight for important issues like this. Can anyone explain?

Endy 10y ago
Sure, I can explain it in one word: Republicans.
- obeone1984 10y ago
  I'm almost positive 50 democratic senators voted for this. It's not a Republican or Democrat thing - it's a power thing. You will be hard pressed to find many Republicans in Silicon Valley.
javiani 10y ago
I think it's called corruption. Most working folks trusted that rational people were in charge and a duty to the greater good would be more powerful than self-interest. I gather this sort of thing has happened before: http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/ http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/
newsat13 10y ago
I think you misunderstand how modern Silicon valley works. The new wave of companies is not about technology. It's about what makes money and effective marketing. Even Google which supposedly the tech lord of our generation.. is really about ads. Take away ads and Google isn't google anymore doing cool things as they will have no money for it.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Yeah, I think this is being underestimated. These hip tech companies WANT to get as much data on you as possible, so they're not raising complaints. If they can get a contract with your ISP for access to all of your requests, they can see anything you do on the net, not just what you do from Chrome and/or Android!
rebuilder 10y ago
Why would Silicon Valley companies fight for tighter government regulation of what and how user data can be used for? Wouldn't you expect the opposite?
- stephenr 10y ago
  Because not all SV companies are data whores/pimps? I know the hot new thing is to get zillions in VC funds to provide some half-assed free service, based on the idea that one day you'll have a heap of users who you can somehow milk for a profit, but once upon a time, tech companies made money by providing useful products and services that people were willing to pay for.
  - mastazi 10y ago
    > Because not all SV companies are data whores/pimps? True, but the biggest ones among them definitely are (depending on your definition of "data whores/pimps", Apple might or might not be included here).
TylerH 10y ago
The companies doing this are not Silicon Valley companies. They're old phone companies, more or less, that became internet companies because they owned all the cable that was already laid. And of course the politicians passing this don't give a shit about the Silicon Valley culture or ideals; Republicans care about profits for corporations because that means more fat donations to them.
- CaptainZapp 10y ago
  Silicon Valley culture of ideals ? No offense, but that's the most ludicrous statement I read in a long time. Silicon Valley is about money and power. Ideals, apart from "ideals" packed into cheesy marketing slogans, just don't play into that.
- mastazi 10y ago
  To be fair, those old phone companies just wanted to be able to do the same thing that Google, Facebook and other SV companies are already doing. So much for the "Silicon Valley culture or ideals".
cookiecaper 10y ago
The idealistic conservative's perspective is that the government should regulate the minimum amount of conduct necessary to have a successful and functioning market. In accordance with free market principles, this regulation is being repealed on the belief that it does not serve a necessary function. Before you scoff, please realize that legal restrictions are immensely heavy-handed, and very frequently abused or misappropriated. Regulations frequently accidentally overshoot their target, and they stay on the books for years. Discarding unnecessary regulations is not only good hygiene, but it may be critical to the development of some improvement or technology that the lawmakers had not conceived when the law was made. It'd be nice if Congress was fast enough on its feet to recognize this as it was occurring and make the necessary adjustments, but it simply does not work that way; once something is law, it's very likely going to stay that way, untouched for decades or even centuries. Remember all the articles about the FBI attempting to invoke a statute from 1798 (yes, seventeen-ninety-eight, numbers not transposed) to compel the decryption of an iPhone? For example, the CFAA passed long before the World Wide Web was a thing, but it's had an immense effect on the internet's development and continues to be misappropriated by large companies to harass small players and break their products before they get large enough to pose a threat. Another example is the Copyright Act, which, under current interpretation, considers RAM copies of copyrighted works as distinct copies eligible for protection. This means that you're potentially violating someone's copyright just by downloading their web site! Combine these two statutes written for bygone times but very much in full effect today, and if you make the wrong person mad, you're looking at not only going bankrupt trying to figure out how to pay your legal bills, but also becoming a felon. Such was the case with Aaron Swartz, who was facing prosecution under these outdated regulations for downloading publicly-funded research papers from a paywalled database. It should also be clarified that this repeal only removes one set of regulations, a set imposed by the FCC and that has only existed for the last couple of years. I'm not a lawyer, but somehow I doubt the issue is so simplistic that Comcast is going to open up "BuyYourNeighborsBrowsingHistory.com" any time soon. There are a variety of other laws that may apply to the legality of reselling such data, and surely these would require evaluation before the concept was greenlit. Furthermore, if Congress can be convinced that this is a bad idea, they need only to pass a new bill. The core issue is that telecommunications services, including ISPs, are not what most people would consider a functioning free market, because 90%+ of the U.S. can not obtain comparable service from anyone besides the main telecommunication provider in their area. If they could, moving to an ISP that respected privacy without being compelled to do so by legal force would be a perfectly reasonable position to take. The focus must be on getting our reps to solve the constrained telco market. Interestingly enough, that may also involve liberations to and/or removals of the FCC regulations around radio broadcasting, licensing, etc. One humorous note: if we believe the most dramatic prophecies about the meaning of this repeal, the last season of South Park may be closer to real life than we think. A foreign company develops technology to uncover the complete internet history of every human and the real-world identity behind every anonymous or pseudonymous post and threatens to publicize these. Complete social breakdown ensues.

Endy 10y ago

Sure, I can explain it in one word: Republicans.

obeone1984 10y ago
I'm almost positive 50 democratic senators voted for this. It's not a Republican or Democrat thing - it's a power thing. You will be hard pressed to find many Republicans in Silicon Valley.

javiani 10y ago

I think it's called corruption. Most working folks trusted that rational people were in charge and a duty to the greater good would be more powerful than self-interest. I gather this sort of thing has happened before: http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/ http://www.rome.info/history/empire/fall/

newsat13 10y ago

I think you misunderstand how modern Silicon valley works. The new wave of companies is not about technology. It's about what makes money and effective marketing. Even Google which supposedly the tech lord of our generation.. is really about ads. Take away ads and Google isn't google anymore doing cool things as they will have no money for it.

cookiecaper 10y ago
Yeah, I think this is being underestimated. These hip tech companies WANT to get as much data on you as possible, so they're not raising complaints. If they can get a contract with your ISP for access to all of your requests, they can see anything you do on the net, not just what you do from Chrome and/or Android!

rebuilder 10y ago

Why would Silicon Valley companies fight for tighter government regulation of what and how user data can be used for? Wouldn't you expect the opposite?

stephenr 10y ago
Because not all SV companies are data whores/pimps? I know the hot new thing is to get zillions in VC funds to provide some half-assed free service, based on the idea that one day you'll have a heap of users who you can somehow milk for a profit, but once upon a time, tech companies made money by providing useful products and services that people were willing to pay for.
- mastazi 10y ago
  > Because not all SV companies are data whores/pimps? True, but the biggest ones among them definitely are (depending on your definition of "data whores/pimps", Apple might or might not be included here).

TylerH 10y ago

The companies doing this are not Silicon Valley companies. They're old phone companies, more or less, that became internet companies because they owned all the cable that was already laid. And of course the politicians passing this don't give a shit about the Silicon Valley culture or ideals; Republicans care about profits for corporations because that means more fat donations to them.

CaptainZapp 10y ago
Silicon Valley culture of ideals ? No offense, but that's the most ludicrous statement I read in a long time. Silicon Valley is about money and power. Ideals, apart from "ideals" packed into cheesy marketing slogans, just don't play into that.
mastazi 10y ago
To be fair, those old phone companies just wanted to be able to do the same thing that Google, Facebook and other SV companies are already doing. So much for the "Silicon Valley culture or ideals".

cookiecaper 10y ago

The idealistic conservative's perspective is that the government should regulate the minimum amount of conduct necessary to have a successful and functioning market. In accordance with free market principles, this regulation is being repealed on the belief that it does not serve a necessary function. Before you scoff, please realize that legal restrictions are immensely heavy-handed, and very frequently abused or misappropriated. Regulations frequently accidentally overshoot their target, and they stay on the books for years. Discarding unnecessary regulations is not only good hygiene, but it may be critical to the development of some improvement or technology that the lawmakers had not conceived when the law was made. It'd be nice if Congress was fast enough on its feet to recognize this as it was occurring and make the necessary adjustments, but it simply does not work that way; once something is law, it's very likely going to stay that way, untouched for decades or even centuries. Remember all the articles about the FBI attempting to invoke a statute from 1798 (yes, seventeen-ninety-eight, numbers not transposed) to compel the decryption of an iPhone? For example, the CFAA passed long before the World Wide Web was a thing, but it's had an immense effect on the internet's development and continues to be misappropriated by large companies to harass small players and break their products before they get large enough to pose a threat. Another example is the Copyright Act, which, under current interpretation, considers RAM copies of copyrighted works as distinct copies eligible for protection. This means that you're potentially violating someone's copyright just by downloading their web site! Combine these two statutes written for bygone times but very much in full effect today, and if you make the wrong person mad, you're looking at not only going bankrupt trying to figure out how to pay your legal bills, but also becoming a felon. Such was the case with Aaron Swartz, who was facing prosecution under these outdated regulations for downloading publicly-funded research papers from a paywalled database. It should also be clarified that this repeal only removes one set of regulations, a set imposed by the FCC and that has only existed for the last couple of years. I'm not a lawyer, but somehow I doubt the issue is so simplistic that Comcast is going to open up "BuyYourNeighborsBrowsingHistory.com" any time soon. There are a variety of other laws that may apply to the legality of reselling such data, and surely these would require evaluation before the concept was greenlit. Furthermore, if Congress can be convinced that this is a bad idea, they need only to pass a new bill. The core issue is that telecommunications services, including ISPs, are not what most people would consider a functioning free market, because 90%+ of the U.S. can not obtain comparable service from anyone besides the main telecommunication provider in their area. If they could, moving to an ISP that respected privacy without being compelled to do so by legal force would be a perfectly reasonable position to take. The focus must be on getting our reps to solve the constrained telco market. Interestingly enough, that may also involve liberations to and/or removals of the FCC regulations around radio broadcasting, licensing, etc. One humorous note: if we believe the most dramatic prophecies about the meaning of this repeal, the last season of South Park may be closer to real life than we think. A foreign company develops technology to uncover the complete internet history of every human and the real-world identity behind every anonymous or pseudonymous post and threatens to publicize these. Complete social breakdown ensues.