6 ms·

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anyth

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anything is headed in.

RodericDay 9y ago
stop using google
clvx 9y ago
Until the government unplugs the cable.
salimmadjd 9y ago
Agreed! The initial intent of 1st Amendment was to protect the public against tyranny of the government. However, when entities like Google, Apple, FB have such impact on the population and spread of information, they can become the "great firewall". This is very dangerous and google should not be in the position to become the thought police.
- mantas 9y ago
  It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well. Freedom of speech already does. Unfortunately Americans tend to conflate the broad concept with the US First Amendment.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Which "freedom of speech" does? European Freedom of speech has quite a few caveats too. There were cases where people lost their jobs for their extracurricular legal activities that were hate speech according to someone. Like in US, private companies seem to give in much quicker than government that tries to follow the law to the letter.
      - tome 9y ago
        The general notion of what it means for speech to be free, not a legal protection of that notion.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      Usually because that's the only place it's really codified into law or any other legitimate document in the US. The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the first amendment, but that's all just implicitly codified via past decisions and opinions - a less discoverable format I've yet to find.
  - cjslep 9y ago
    Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights. Seriously, conservatives in America want to have their cake and eat it too. "We meant freedom for corporations-as-people but only when it helps us".
    - mantas 9y ago
      Which is not good either. IMO, any business shall serve any customer regardless. Unless said customer is breaking a (sane) law. For the record, I'm not American. I grew up in ex-USSR country that was just recovering from total censorship. What is going on today in the world is sickening me. A lot of rhetoric in the West is too similar to USSR craziness. I'll be happy to be offended and keep my right to offend you. The other way ain't pretty.
      - tanilama 9y ago
        > any business shall serve any customer regardless Amazon blacklists people who abuse their service, like return policy. They are not breaking the laws, but blocking these bad customers is not only a moral choice but also a rational one, since it protects the sellers and other customers. Likewise, if you are making a scene in a private space, if it disturbs the usual operation, the owner should have the right to kick you out, because you are damaging their business. So I say otherwise, any private business owner should have the right to refuse offering their service to people who they consider harmful to their interests. Google could argue, hosting those hateful content draw negative attention from the media which tarnish their image thus hurt their business interests. The one and only problem is, Google is too big and too powerful, their decision carries significant impact which should not be taken lightly.
        mantas 9y ago
        What is gay couple is making a scene in a private space and demanding a cake? And the bakery happens to be by the church and having gays hand-in-hand would severely hurt their business? What if instead of gays it's cyclists in undersized lycra? I'd rather not have either of them kicked out. I'm pretty sure abuse of return policy is covered by some kind of law. On the other hand, blacklisting customers who just use advertised return policy to it's full extent is not moral either. False advertisement is breaking of the law too.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    Surely you can be free to say whatever you want but a business doesn't have to do business with you. For example I could wear a Nazi T-Shirt with "Hang all Niggers" emblazoned in it, and a shop could quite rightly refuse to admit me to their store or refuse to serve me if I did go into their store. So why is it different for Google or Facebook to say "we don't want you as a customer"?
    - mantas 9y ago
      That's what I'm saying. If it was truly freedom of speech, a shop couldn't refuse to serve you either.
      - bmelton 9y ago
        By your definition, true freedom of speech would force me to open my home to Nazis so that they could come in and yell at me about how much they hate my consorting with Jews. In the real world, freedom of speech is generally free enough as it is, and in the example above, is in tension with my right to freedom of association. Yes, the Nazis are allowed to yell at me, just as I'm allowed to distance myself from them. If I own property, I can go one step further by going home and locking the door. I don't like Nazis, but Google's censorship here is giving me pause. Yes, of course they have every right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. Thankfully, so do I. If I don't care for Google's censorship, I'm free to use Spotify, or Pandora, or whatever other company (hopefully) makes a principled stand against censorship. At the end of the day, it's their house, and if they want to lock the door to keep Nazis out, I can't imagine any fair world that would force them to open those doors.
        mantas 9y ago
        At least in my country, there're laws for disturbing public. Even if you shout "I love political correctness" too loudly and too long, you can be taken to custody and fined. If Nazis are such a big problem, secret service and whatnot should start looking into them. It's not a job of private company to enforce it's own point-of-view on the society. Wether it's correct not, but a private company cannot hold a a fair trial. And censorship without one is just wrong. I'd rather have a pissed off bakery serving gay cakes and coffeeshop serving nazi teaparty than letting a private company apply censorship.
  - Bjartr 9y ago
    Would enforcing freedom of speech on companies that people communicate over mean any kind of moderation would be in violation of that?
    - kazagistar 9y ago
      It would at least mean any kind of moderarion without due process might be questionable.
  - awinder 9y ago
    Really? You think that you could make private individuals carry water for ideals that conflict with their own? And that people, far and wide, would just be openly accepting of this idea? I’ve heard “freedom of speech” defined as a natural right, but this idea is the most unnatural way for people to act.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Private individual getting paid is not so private anymore. Especially once "protected classes" are brought in. Either go all in and allow anybody to refuse service to anybody or make everybody serve everybody. I don't see middle ground in there. It'd always result in he-said, she-said. Point in case - people bringing up the gay cake in mentioning of google memogate. Is a bus company right to refuse service to protesters going to a protest? Can a train company cancel trains specifically on a day of event they don't like for some reason? Can cellphone carrier shut down service for people they don't like for some reason? Can gas station refuse selling gas to skinheads on a roadtrip? What if they're just going to work on a regular workday?
      - awinder 9y ago
        There’s ways to convolute any of those scenarios, but let me just explain why I think there are notable differences: 1. Protected classes are defined by a history of prejudicial treatment and blocked access to essential services, and they exist as a class of people defined by biological markers. So you can control being black or being gay, and you can’t access any bus service or use the same water fountain anywhere. This is very different than holding an opinion, and not being serviced by an add-on provider. 2. There are great differences between being denied a voice and being denied an amplification platform for that voice. We never mandated that newspapers print every letter to the editor, or even provide equal time to classes of opinions (although that did happen in a natural way). If you tried to get a cake plastered with swastikas, that would not be protected free speech and could be denied service. You have to go find a Nazi baker or append the speech yourself. This is very different from being black and you can not get any cake from any baker, and they’ll know too, because you can’t exactly hide the fact that you’re black.
  - jawbone3 9y ago
    You could just update the law you know... it doesn't have to be the slave to old ideas.
  - SaltySolomon 9y ago
    But wouldn't you limit the speech of a person that way, I mean it is also the freedom of association that is given to those companies and they choose not to associate with them.
- justadeveloper2 9y ago
  Not only that, but the companies you have listed are all to eager to get in bed with the Chinese government and then for efficiency reasons, they start moving everything to that least common denominator of free expression. We definitely have a problem here. I'm thoroughly disgusted with tech companies right now--these are not the brave risk-takers that made me so hopeful for the 21st century.
- DrJaws 9y ago
  Too late, they already been for at least 2 years
- erikj 9y ago
  Our communications must be decentralized as much as possible, if we want to avoid the dominance of any kind of thought police. Maybe it's the best time to start rolling out wireless peer-to-peer networks everywhere and to switch to software that doesn't rely on Google or Facebook datacenters.
- UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
  This is a facet of American culture that I've always found interesting... Self determination is a very core part of what I, an outsider, see as American-ism. But self determination only seems to apply to government interference, not private. For example, in the US organisations like HOAs (Homeowners Associations) and employers are allowed to encroach on what from my perspective I consider personal freedoms, but people accept it in the US because they're non-governmental in origin. Here in Europe, freedom is freedom. It is irrelevant who is telling you you cannot paint your home orange be it local government, a private entity, or your next door neighbour. But in the US freedom only applies to government, private entities are allowed to violate people however they want under the guise of "choice." What I've found in my life is that choice is a perk of the wealthy. The poor often lack choice.
tommynicholas 9y ago
I agree, in that it sucks that it's a literal handful, but on the flip side it's nice to know the government is set up in such a way that it isn't by default the most powerful entity in every imaginable way. The people themselves, private companies, etc have a chance to be more powerful than the government in a variety of ways. I'm a pro-government liberal who is extremely wary of the power of global corporations, but I still take some solace in what this says about our system.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  What does it say about our system that we have relatively more corporate overlords than government overlords?
  - MBCook 9y ago
    The problem is the government is supposed to keep the private sector in check for such things. But since we've basically given up on stopping monopolies and mega-mergers the companies and now so big and control so many things they have power without competition to keep it in check.
- ameister14 9y ago
  >on the flip side it's nice to know the government is set up in such a way that it isn't by default the most powerful entity in every imaginable way. The people themselves, private companies, etc have a chance to be more powerful than the government in a variety of ways. That's been the case before, it's not a great thing. In the late 18th and early 19th century, a few magnates were arguably more powerful than the US government. They certainly ran the US government. A lot of the protections we have today are a response to that time period
  - tommynicholas 9y ago
    I mentioned that I'm uncomfortable with how few companies have so much control. It's far better now than it was in the pre-Trust-busting days, for sure. However, it's trending the wrong direction.
jostmey 9y ago
There is a big difference between the government and a private organization. The government can throw you in prison and strip you of your constitutional rights. Private organizations cannot (unless hired by the government, which is should not be happening)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > strip you of your constitutional rights Like the right of free speech? Or free initiative, by blocking money transfer? The difference isn't that big anymore, and that is the problem.
discombobulate 9y ago
Which is why crypto tech is important. The foundations of a decentralised internet are being built[0]. [0] https://ipfs.io/ https://ipfs.io/
moduspol 9y ago
Well sometimes it works out in our favor. Like when Apple fought the FBI trying to get legal precedent for compelling them to create a backdoor for their own devices / software. As strange as it is, who else but a huge powerful tech company could do that?

It's increasingly uncomfortable to realize that a handful of tech companies are in many ways more powerful than the government. I don't like the direction anything is headed in.

RodericDay 9y ago

stop using google

clvx 9y ago

Until the government unplugs the cable.

salimmadjd 9y ago

Agreed! The initial intent of 1st Amendment was to protect the public against tyranny of the government. However, when entities like Google, Apple, FB have such impact on the population and spread of information, they can become the "great firewall". This is very dangerous and google should not be in the position to become the thought police.

mantas 9y ago
It's even more frustrating when people supposedly loving freedom say that freedom of speech was only meant to protect from government and private companies can discriminate as they wish. I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.
- lmm 9y ago
  > I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well. Freedom of speech already does. Unfortunately Americans tend to conflate the broad concept with the US First Amendment.
  - mantas 9y ago
    Which "freedom of speech" does? European Freedom of speech has quite a few caveats too. There were cases where people lost their jobs for their extracurricular legal activities that were hate speech according to someone. Like in US, private companies seem to give in much quicker than government that tries to follow the law to the letter.
    - tome 9y ago
      The general notion of what it means for speech to be free, not a legal protection of that notion.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Usually because that's the only place it's really codified into law or any other legitimate document in the US. The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the first amendment, but that's all just implicitly codified via past decisions and opinions - a less discoverable format I've yet to find.
- cjslep 9y ago
  Yes, like all those conservatives fighting for Hobby Lobby to not provide contraception support for it's employees because "first amendment" and all those mom and pop shops that don't want to serve gay people in the South because of first amendment rights. Seriously, conservatives in America want to have their cake and eat it too. "We meant freedom for corporations-as-people but only when it helps us".
  - mantas 9y ago
    Which is not good either. IMO, any business shall serve any customer regardless. Unless said customer is breaking a (sane) law. For the record, I'm not American. I grew up in ex-USSR country that was just recovering from total censorship. What is going on today in the world is sickening me. A lot of rhetoric in the West is too similar to USSR craziness. I'll be happy to be offended and keep my right to offend you. The other way ain't pretty.
    - tanilama 9y ago
      > any business shall serve any customer regardless Amazon blacklists people who abuse their service, like return policy. They are not breaking the laws, but blocking these bad customers is not only a moral choice but also a rational one, since it protects the sellers and other customers. Likewise, if you are making a scene in a private space, if it disturbs the usual operation, the owner should have the right to kick you out, because you are damaging their business. So I say otherwise, any private business owner should have the right to refuse offering their service to people who they consider harmful to their interests. Google could argue, hosting those hateful content draw negative attention from the media which tarnish their image thus hurt their business interests. The one and only problem is, Google is too big and too powerful, their decision carries significant impact which should not be taken lightly.
      - mantas 9y ago
        What is gay couple is making a scene in a private space and demanding a cake? And the bakery happens to be by the church and having gays hand-in-hand would severely hurt their business? What if instead of gays it's cyclists in undersized lycra? I'd rather not have either of them kicked out. I'm pretty sure abuse of return policy is covered by some kind of law. On the other hand, blacklisting customers who just use advertised return policy to it's full extent is not moral either. False advertisement is breaking of the law too.
- celticninja 9y ago
  Surely you can be free to say whatever you want but a business doesn't have to do business with you. For example I could wear a Nazi T-Shirt with "Hang all Niggers" emblazoned in it, and a shop could quite rightly refuse to admit me to their store or refuse to serve me if I did go into their store. So why is it different for Google or Facebook to say "we don't want you as a customer"?
  - mantas 9y ago
    That's what I'm saying. If it was truly freedom of speech, a shop couldn't refuse to serve you either.
    - bmelton 9y ago
      By your definition, true freedom of speech would force me to open my home to Nazis so that they could come in and yell at me about how much they hate my consorting with Jews. In the real world, freedom of speech is generally free enough as it is, and in the example above, is in tension with my right to freedom of association. Yes, the Nazis are allowed to yell at me, just as I'm allowed to distance myself from them. If I own property, I can go one step further by going home and locking the door. I don't like Nazis, but Google's censorship here is giving me pause. Yes, of course they have every right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. Thankfully, so do I. If I don't care for Google's censorship, I'm free to use Spotify, or Pandora, or whatever other company (hopefully) makes a principled stand against censorship. At the end of the day, it's their house, and if they want to lock the door to keep Nazis out, I can't imagine any fair world that would force them to open those doors.
      - mantas 9y ago
        At least in my country, there're laws for disturbing public. Even if you shout "I love political correctness" too loudly and too long, you can be taken to custody and fined. If Nazis are such a big problem, secret service and whatnot should start looking into them. It's not a job of private company to enforce it's own point-of-view on the society. Wether it's correct not, but a private company cannot hold a a fair trial. And censorship without one is just wrong. I'd rather have a pissed off bakery serving gay cakes and coffeeshop serving nazi teaparty than letting a private company apply censorship.
- Bjartr 9y ago
  Would enforcing freedom of speech on companies that people communicate over mean any kind of moderation would be in violation of that?
  - kazagistar 9y ago
    It would at least mean any kind of moderarion without due process might be questionable.
- awinder 9y ago
  Really? You think that you could make private individuals carry water for ideals that conflict with their own? And that people, far and wide, would just be openly accepting of this idea? I’ve heard “freedom of speech” defined as a natural right, but this idea is the most unnatural way for people to act.
  - mantas 9y ago
    Private individual getting paid is not so private anymore. Especially once "protected classes" are brought in. Either go all in and allow anybody to refuse service to anybody or make everybody serve everybody. I don't see middle ground in there. It'd always result in he-said, she-said. Point in case - people bringing up the gay cake in mentioning of google memogate. Is a bus company right to refuse service to protesters going to a protest? Can a train company cancel trains specifically on a day of event they don't like for some reason? Can cellphone carrier shut down service for people they don't like for some reason? Can gas station refuse selling gas to skinheads on a roadtrip? What if they're just going to work on a regular workday?
    - awinder 9y ago
      There’s ways to convolute any of those scenarios, but let me just explain why I think there are notable differences: 1. Protected classes are defined by a history of prejudicial treatment and blocked access to essential services, and they exist as a class of people defined by biological markers. So you can control being black or being gay, and you can’t access any bus service or use the same water fountain anywhere. This is very different than holding an opinion, and not being serviced by an add-on provider. 2. There are great differences between being denied a voice and being denied an amplification platform for that voice. We never mandated that newspapers print every letter to the editor, or even provide equal time to classes of opinions (although that did happen in a natural way). If you tried to get a cake plastered with swastikas, that would not be protected free speech and could be denied service. You have to go find a Nazi baker or append the speech yourself. This is very different from being black and you can not get any cake from any baker, and they’ll know too, because you can’t exactly hide the fact that you’re black.
- jawbone3 9y ago
  You could just update the law you know... it doesn't have to be the slave to old ideas.
- SaltySolomon 9y ago
  But wouldn't you limit the speech of a person that way, I mean it is also the freedom of association that is given to those companies and they choose not to associate with them.
justadeveloper2 9y ago
Not only that, but the companies you have listed are all to eager to get in bed with the Chinese government and then for efficiency reasons, they start moving everything to that least common denominator of free expression. We definitely have a problem here. I'm thoroughly disgusted with tech companies right now--these are not the brave risk-takers that made me so hopeful for the 21st century.
DrJaws 9y ago
Too late, they already been for at least 2 years
erikj 9y ago
Our communications must be decentralized as much as possible, if we want to avoid the dominance of any kind of thought police. Maybe it's the best time to start rolling out wireless peer-to-peer networks everywhere and to switch to software that doesn't rely on Google or Facebook datacenters.
UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
This is a facet of American culture that I've always found interesting... Self determination is a very core part of what I, an outsider, see as American-ism. But self determination only seems to apply to government interference, not private. For example, in the US organisations like HOAs (Homeowners Associations) and employers are allowed to encroach on what from my perspective I consider personal freedoms, but people accept it in the US because they're non-governmental in origin. Here in Europe, freedom is freedom. It is irrelevant who is telling you you cannot paint your home orange be it local government, a private entity, or your next door neighbour. But in the US freedom only applies to government, private entities are allowed to violate people however they want under the guise of "choice." What I've found in my life is that choice is a perk of the wealthy. The poor often lack choice.

tommynicholas 9y ago

I agree, in that it sucks that it's a literal handful, but on the flip side it's nice to know the government is set up in such a way that it isn't by default the most powerful entity in every imaginable way. The people themselves, private companies, etc have a chance to be more powerful than the government in a variety of ways. I'm a pro-government liberal who is extremely wary of the power of global corporations, but I still take some solace in what this says about our system.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
What does it say about our system that we have relatively more corporate overlords than government overlords?
- MBCook 9y ago
  The problem is the government is supposed to keep the private sector in check for such things. But since we've basically given up on stopping monopolies and mega-mergers the companies and now so big and control so many things they have power without competition to keep it in check.
ameister14 9y ago
>on the flip side it's nice to know the government is set up in such a way that it isn't by default the most powerful entity in every imaginable way. The people themselves, private companies, etc have a chance to be more powerful than the government in a variety of ways. That's been the case before, it's not a great thing. In the late 18th and early 19th century, a few magnates were arguably more powerful than the US government. They certainly ran the US government. A lot of the protections we have today are a response to that time period
- tommynicholas 9y ago
  I mentioned that I'm uncomfortable with how few companies have so much control. It's far better now than it was in the pre-Trust-busting days, for sure. However, it's trending the wrong direction.

jostmey 9y ago

There is a big difference between the government and a private organization. The government can throw you in prison and strip you of your constitutional rights. Private organizations cannot (unless hired by the government, which is should not be happening)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
marcosdumay 9y ago
> strip you of your constitutional rights Like the right of free speech? Or free initiative, by blocking money transfer? The difference isn't that big anymore, and that is the problem.

discombobulate 9y ago

Which is why crypto tech is important. The foundations of a decentralised internet are being built[0]. [0] https://ipfs.io/ https://ipfs.io/

moduspol 9y ago

Well sometimes it works out in our favor. Like when Apple fought the FBI trying to get legal precedent for compelling them to create a backdoor for their own devices / software. As strange as it is, who else but a huge powerful tech company could do that?