4 ms·

"Tech giants" mean very large tech companies, basically these: Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple. This term is found often in the media, and is quite u

by staltz 9y ago

"Tech giants" mean very large tech companies, basically these: Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple. This term is found often in the media, and is quite unambiguous. Examples of rhetoric from those companies where they do the opposite of what they say: they often claim "you [the user] are in control". For instance 1. https://privacy.google.com/# https://privacy.google.com/# ("put you in control") 2. https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info ("make the world more open and connected") While it's debatable what "in control" is and what "open and connected" means, they make a bold claim without revealing the subtlety of the topic. Not being honest about user data collection in NSA PRISMA is not exactly putting the user in control. Google has a track record of deprecating services that were used by a sizable user base, such as Google Reader or Picasa. Shutting these down without even giving them out as open source or providing some migration path is not really letting the users be in control. Google's core strategy is shifting towards suggestions, away from search. Page and Brin said this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpjOZGxKhRM&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpjOZGxKhRM&feature=youtu.be While it could be argued that suggestions just create assistance like a personal secretary does, Google doesn't just assist on demand, it proactively suggests (and will do more of this, according to Page and Brin), and also shapes users' perception of reality (through Google Search results, which is the topic of the fine). So an entity has pervasive information about a person, does proactive suggestions and shapes their perception of reality is not exactly what I would call a mere assistant. I would compare that role to parenthood, which is consistent with Google's strategies: to know more about you than you know yourself, and to take care of you (which is aligned with their "Don't be evil" / "Do the right thing" motto. It seems they genuinely believe they are benevolent). That is, arguably, Google in control. Now onto example 2, Facebook has long said it makes the world more open and connected. The mere fact that Facebook holds massive amounts of relevant content locked up behind a login wall means content is not accessible to search engines. This is the exact opposite of an "open" scenario. It's also debatable what they mean by "connected". It sounds like "people connected to each other", but in practice it is "people connected to Facebook", and incidentally also connected to each other. If their goal was to connect people to each other, they would pursue P2P, mesh networks (e.g. https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/ https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/ is one implementation), etc that allow local communities to connect with each other and with the external world despite the lack of internet infrastructure. In practice, their internet.org program is widely known to have dropped net neutrality when it was implemented in India and other countries, favoring Facebook's walled garden. This is the opposite of open and connected (e.g. it eliminates interaction with other people on different social networks like forums, Reddit, etc). They have plans to provide internet to regions that lack internet infrastructure through drones and satellites (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2855979/why-google-and-facebook-need-balloons-drones-and-rockets.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2855979/why-google-and-...) but the priority here seems to be getting those people connected to Facebook first, and then connected to other people. Cheaper and quicker solutions could be implemented simply with phones and P2P, allowing people to connect to each other first, and share data in a gossip style which is also scalable. So there you go, two examples at least. It should be enough to confirm that I am contributing to the conversation, and I'd appreciate if no ad hominen comments are made, they just distract.

jimmywanger 9y ago
> "Tech giants" mean very large tech companies, basically these: Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple. This term is found often in the media, and is quite unambiguous. You're begging the question. Define tech company and giant. You're defining the term by itself, which is a great usage of circular logic. > 1. https://privacy.google.com/# https://privacy.google.com/# ("put you in control") 2. https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info ("make the world more open and connected") Google allows you to control any information you decide to share with it, and gives you a dashboard where you can see what information it uses. It shutting down systems that it no longer deems profitable is not putting you out of control - you cannot control Google, and it's not required to give you alternatives to its systems. It does allow you to export all data you have uploaded into it. > That is, arguably, Google in control. That is arguably, not. You're debating semantics here and saying that you're the sole valid arbiter and true interpreter of Google's statements. I assert that you're not. Our arguments are equally valid. > Cheaper and quicker solutions could be implemented simply with phones and P2P... In your opinion. Facebook has a set of constraints - just because they're prioritizing certain other priorities or technical solutions to lack of connectivity and openness doesn't mean that they're lying about their priorities. > I'd appreciate if no ad "hominen" comments are made, they just distract. First, it's spelled hominem. Misspelling a logical fallacy is on the same order as misspelling idiotic - it makes it very difficult to take either your arguments or your point seriously. Point out exactly one instance where I disparaged somebody's character or background as a reason for the invalidity of their argument, rather than a lack of logic in their discussion. Your introducing of an supposed ad hominem attack is baseless and a red herring, designed to distract from the basic weakness and invalidity of your argument.

by staltz 9y ago

jimmywanger 9y ago

> "Tech giants" mean very large tech companies, basically these: Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple. This term is found often in the media, and is quite unambiguous. You're begging the question. Define tech company and giant. You're defining the term by itself, which is a great usage of circular logic. > 1. https://privacy.google.com/# https://privacy.google.com/# ("put you in control") 2. https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info ("make the world more open and connected") Google allows you to control any information you decide to share with it, and gives you a dashboard where you can see what information it uses. It shutting down systems that it no longer deems profitable is not putting you out of control - you cannot control Google, and it's not required to give you alternatives to its systems. It does allow you to export all data you have uploaded into it. > That is, arguably, Google in control. That is arguably, not. You're debating semantics here and saying that you're the sole valid arbiter and true interpreter of Google's statements. I assert that you're not. Our arguments are equally valid. > Cheaper and quicker solutions could be implemented simply with phones and P2P... In your opinion. Facebook has a set of constraints - just because they're prioritizing certain other priorities or technical solutions to lack of connectivity and openness doesn't mean that they're lying about their priorities. > I'd appreciate if no ad "hominen" comments are made, they just distract. First, it's spelled hominem. Misspelling a logical fallacy is on the same order as misspelling idiotic - it makes it very difficult to take either your arguments or your point seriously. Point out exactly one instance where I disparaged somebody's character or background as a reason for the invalidity of their argument, rather than a lack of logic in their discussion. Your introducing of an supposed ad hominem attack is baseless and a red herring, designed to distract from the basic weakness and invalidity of your argument.