6 ms·

From the article: "Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine right of kings" Call me when Apple starts exercising prima noctis. I'm pretty su

From the article: "Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine right of kings" Call me when Apple starts exercising prima noctis. I'm pretty sure Google can't wage war, either, and if Oracle could hang you for theft they would've done so by now. So unless I'm missing something maybe we should lay off the hyperbole a bit?

B0btheBuilder 9y ago
hyperbole: >>hy·per·bo·le >>hīˈpərbəlē >>noun >>exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally Perhaps you're missing the fact that hyperbole isn't meant to be taken literally?
vacri 9y ago
When did prima noctis ever occur? Not "as a right of kings in general" which even the myths don't suggest, but even once, as a specific right of one king?
TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The problem isn't that they're ruling the world with iron fists, the problem is that they could if they chose to. The data that each of those large tech companies are able to collect can be used to manipulate populations in ways that have never been seen before. That's not something to treat lightly.
pokemongoaway 9y ago
Yes, but they work closely with government - and moreover government intelligence agencies - so government can leverage their help to do these things. There's plenty of evidence this has already happened.
- dlp211 9y ago
  [Citation Needed]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    The many missing-presumed-dead canaries? Snowden?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Search the internet for the following terms: <your national intelligence service(s)> working with <tech giant>
  - LambdaComplex 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
    - pokemongoaway 9y ago
      See project veritas and wikileaks as well.
  - pokemongoaway 9y ago
    [Explanation needed] that I made an extraordinary claim. It is interesting that people still think it is acceptable to call people crazy for claiming US government agencies are complicit in corruption.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      I made this same point a while back on HN and the response I received was >people are half a second between 'that's absurd, they're not doing that,' and 'of course it's always been that way.' In 1994, X-Files Season 1 Ep. 17 introduced the Lone Gunmen, a group of conspiracy theorists: >"The characters, who were used to help Mulder appear more credible" If you watch the episode, one of the main 'batshit insane'conspiracy theories they put forward was that the government is recording everyone's phone calls--then Scully rolls her eyes and Mulder appears skeptical. You have to admit, it is kind of crazy... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.B.E._(The_X-Files) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.B.E._(The_X-Files)
- throw7773424 9y ago
  +1, Assange's description of his meeting with Google's Eric Schmidt was eye-opening for the then naive self.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Could you give a TLDR?
  - mda 9y ago
    Was this before Assange went full tinfoil hat lunatic and claimed Page & Brin were working for government from the government.
- api 9y ago
  This just seems like the tech mega-corps have grown to the point that they now command the same level of influence as other massive corporations. How many wars and "covert ops" have we fought for oil, gas, bananas, and sugar? How much influence do the defense, aerospace, petroleum, and banking industries have over government? Big tech is just joining the club. Wake me up when we go to war for Facebook.
  - pokemongoaway 9y ago
    *shakes you while saying, "bro, FB war, wake up..."
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
In all seriousness though, I'm unsure why an Apple or Amazon hasn't raised their own private army by now.
- lettergram 9y ago
  If they're viewed as threats to soverenty I'm confident the company will disappear
  - squarefoot 9y ago
    It doesn't work like that. First they fund candidates, then...
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Armies are expensive and difficult to maintain, so you need a pressing reason to have one, such as defending or conquering territory. What would Apple or Amazon need an army for? If you want to see how a company can wield the power of a nation-state sans army, see: Exxon.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  They don't need large standing forces ATM because that's handled by nation states who will defend everything within their borders. As for smaller forces, hasn't it been outsourced by now? Can't Apple or Amazon or Google just hire Blackwater, or whatever they call themselves these days?
apsec112 9y ago
David Streitfeld writes almost nothing except hit pieces on tech companies, programmers, and so on. He's been doing it for years. I knew this piece was by him before I even clicked the link. Asking Streitfeld to be fair to tech companies is like asking tabloid newspapers to respect celebrities' privacy; it's just not what they're about.
blowski 9y ago
If you think of the nation state as a dying entity, being replaced by global corporations, then it can sort of make sense. You could argue that they _are_ engaged in cyberwars. The way they can unilaterally change so much of our lives could also be construed as absolute power. I don’t necessarily agree with the author, as I think he misses out much of the benefit they continue to offer the world. But I think your criticsm is anachronistic - power in the 21st century isn’t measured solely by boots on the ground, or ability to raise taxes.
- walshemj 9y ago
  As cornet Joyce proved "people with guns" is the defination of power
  - blowski 9y ago
    By that strict definition, there were no powerful people before guns were invented.
- goatlover 9y ago
  Power is also the legal system, and corporations don't make, pass or interpret law either, even if they have an undue influence on some of those who do. But even with that influence, they're still at the mercy of voters. It's always possible for an unfavorable administration or legislator to get into power, or an unsympathetic judge to rule against them. And Governments have broken up powerful companies before.
  - sacheendra 9y ago
    For the sake of argument, they are at the mercy of voters is only true if voters cannot be influenced by these companies. Today's tech companies can influence voters in subtle ways an run huge PR campaigns to influence voters. In the future, only favourable legislators will come into power and laws, precedent and changing mindset will make it difficult for for a judge to rule against them. The difference between modern tech giants and erstwhile powerful companies like standard oil is that tech giants are much closer to people's daily lives and occupy some much of their time. This way people are attached and strong feelings about Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. that they didn't have towards Standard Oil.
makomk 9y ago
Also, fundamentally the problem people seem to have with tech giants isn't actually the concentration of power, it's that they're not using that power in precisely the way the people who're complaining want. For example, the complaints about "Russian interference" are a demand to exercise that centralised power. As another example, the activists who've been demanding Twitter crack down on doxxing and harassment are currently organising a 24-hour boycott of the site because it didn't let a celebrity post someone's private number and get her followers to harass them, because what they really meant is that the site should ban other people who they detest, that it should use its power to silence their enemies.
ionised 9y ago
prima noctis was a myth. There is no evidence of it ever being practiced.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >prima noctis was a myth. It is ius primae noctis (still there is no evidence it ever existed) or "right of the first night". "prima noctis" doesn't make much sense in Latin, it lacks the subject (ius aka right) and prima is not genitive as noctis is. It would make sense in expressions like "hora prima noctis" or "vigilia prima noctis" which translates to first hour (or vigilia, i.e. turn of vigilance, three hours long roughly) of the night and more loosely "just after sunset".
nython 9y ago
> Call me when Apple starts exercising prima noctis. https://pando.com/2014/03/27/how-steve-jobs-forced-google-to-cancel-its-plan-to-open-a-paris-office/ https://pando.com/2014/03/27/how-steve-jobs-forced-google-to...
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  I'm obviously not a medieval expert but how is that even vaguely related to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
coldtea 9y ago
>I'm pretty sure Google can't wage war No, but such a service can be just be used to help win wars, blackmail politicians in other countries, spy on foreign businessmen and policy influencers, and those sorts of things... Besides corporations have a long history of meddling with local politics, hiring thugs to kill people (e.g. strikers or union leaders), even helping install dictatorships. Of course such things happen in such ways as to provide all ways of "plausible deniability" to company executives. It's not like they'll send a fax asking for such things -- "just deal with it" communicated to some local managers implies more than enough. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
- fapjacks 9y ago
  Right, the whole purpose of war in the first place is to defeat your enemy's will to fight you. There are a huge number of ways to do this without an army, and Google is in a particularly powerful position to do this.
- ForRealsies 9y ago
  The division of Soft Power vs. Hard Power is well displayed in Trump's current Cabinet.
Verdex_3 9y ago
I appreciate your point, but I thought that I might add that many historians conclude that there is no reasonable evidence that prima noctis has actually occurred. It turns out that no matter how much power you have, there are still some lines that you have a really hard time crossing. Perhaps because it would cause an all out riot. Similarly, most countries are unable to wage war or hang people for theft because the social willpower just isn't present to allow them to do such things. Why should it be any different for companies. I think the question should be, what can a companies do that governments are also doing. Then we can look at what governments do that companies cannot do. If the first set is really big and the second set is really small, then maybe it's not really hyperbole, but just a minor exaggeration.
Iv 9y ago
Google has a foreign policy and could easily make hundreds if not thousand of activists killed around the world. It dictates the laws it wants its automated cars to obey. Apple probably has a better geolocalisation of people than any intelligence agency. Facebook and Twitter are suspected to have delivered the key to the last US presidential elections. Uber mocks the laws of several of the richest countries in the world. Softbank is becoming a behemoth that God knows if it will ever stop growing fat of its robots and AI acquisition. AI research is driven by web companies like Alibaba or Facebook. They are not kings, they are king makers.

B0btheBuilder 9y ago

hyperbole: >>hy·per·bo·le >>hīˈpərbəlē >>noun >>exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally Perhaps you're missing the fact that hyperbole isn't meant to be taken literally?

vacri 9y ago

When did prima noctis ever occur? Not "as a right of kings in general" which even the myths don't suggest, but even once, as a specific right of one king?

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The problem isn't that they're ruling the world with iron fists, the problem is that they could if they chose to. The data that each of those large tech companies are able to collect can be used to manipulate populations in ways that have never been seen before. That's not something to treat lightly.

pokemongoaway 9y ago

Yes, but they work closely with government - and moreover government intelligence agencies - so government can leverage their help to do these things. There's plenty of evidence this has already happened.

dlp211 9y ago
[Citation Needed]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  The many missing-presumed-dead canaries? Snowden?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Search the internet for the following terms: <your national intelligence service(s)> working with <tech giant>
- LambdaComplex 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
  - pokemongoaway 9y ago
    See project veritas and wikileaks as well.
- pokemongoaway 9y ago
  [Explanation needed] that I made an extraordinary claim. It is interesting that people still think it is acceptable to call people crazy for claiming US government agencies are complicit in corruption.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    I made this same point a while back on HN and the response I received was >people are half a second between 'that's absurd, they're not doing that,' and 'of course it's always been that way.' In 1994, X-Files Season 1 Ep. 17 introduced the Lone Gunmen, a group of conspiracy theorists: >"The characters, who were used to help Mulder appear more credible" If you watch the episode, one of the main 'batshit insane'conspiracy theories they put forward was that the government is recording everyone's phone calls--then Scully rolls her eyes and Mulder appears skeptical. You have to admit, it is kind of crazy... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.B.E._(The_X-Files) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.B.E._(The_X-Files)
throw7773424 9y ago
+1, Assange's description of his meeting with Google's Eric Schmidt was eye-opening for the then naive self.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Could you give a TLDR?
- mda 9y ago
  Was this before Assange went full tinfoil hat lunatic and claimed Page & Brin were working for government from the government.
api 9y ago
This just seems like the tech mega-corps have grown to the point that they now command the same level of influence as other massive corporations. How many wars and "covert ops" have we fought for oil, gas, bananas, and sugar? How much influence do the defense, aerospace, petroleum, and banking industries have over government? Big tech is just joining the club. Wake me up when we go to war for Facebook.
- pokemongoaway 9y ago
  *shakes you while saying, "bro, FB war, wake up..."

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

In all seriousness though, I'm unsure why an Apple or Amazon hasn't raised their own private army by now.

lettergram 9y ago
If they're viewed as threats to soverenty I'm confident the company will disappear
- squarefoot 9y ago
  It doesn't work like that. First they fund candidates, then...
QAPereo 9y ago
Armies are expensive and difficult to maintain, so you need a pressing reason to have one, such as defending or conquering territory. What would Apple or Amazon need an army for? If you want to see how a company can wield the power of a nation-state sans army, see: Exxon.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
They don't need large standing forces ATM because that's handled by nation states who will defend everything within their borders. As for smaller forces, hasn't it been outsourced by now? Can't Apple or Amazon or Google just hire Blackwater, or whatever they call themselves these days?

apsec112 9y ago

David Streitfeld writes almost nothing except hit pieces on tech companies, programmers, and so on. He's been doing it for years. I knew this piece was by him before I even clicked the link. Asking Streitfeld to be fair to tech companies is like asking tabloid newspapers to respect celebrities' privacy; it's just not what they're about.

blowski 9y ago

If you think of the nation state as a dying entity, being replaced by global corporations, then it can sort of make sense. You could argue that they _are_ engaged in cyberwars. The way they can unilaterally change so much of our lives could also be construed as absolute power. I don’t necessarily agree with the author, as I think he misses out much of the benefit they continue to offer the world. But I think your criticsm is anachronistic - power in the 21st century isn’t measured solely by boots on the ground, or ability to raise taxes.

walshemj 9y ago
As cornet Joyce proved "people with guns" is the defination of power
- blowski 9y ago
  By that strict definition, there were no powerful people before guns were invented.
goatlover 9y ago
Power is also the legal system, and corporations don't make, pass or interpret law either, even if they have an undue influence on some of those who do. But even with that influence, they're still at the mercy of voters. It's always possible for an unfavorable administration or legislator to get into power, or an unsympathetic judge to rule against them. And Governments have broken up powerful companies before.
- sacheendra 9y ago
  For the sake of argument, they are at the mercy of voters is only true if voters cannot be influenced by these companies. Today's tech companies can influence voters in subtle ways an run huge PR campaigns to influence voters. In the future, only favourable legislators will come into power and laws, precedent and changing mindset will make it difficult for for a judge to rule against them. The difference between modern tech giants and erstwhile powerful companies like standard oil is that tech giants are much closer to people's daily lives and occupy some much of their time. This way people are attached and strong feelings about Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. that they didn't have towards Standard Oil.

makomk 9y ago

Also, fundamentally the problem people seem to have with tech giants isn't actually the concentration of power, it's that they're not using that power in precisely the way the people who're complaining want. For example, the complaints about "Russian interference" are a demand to exercise that centralised power. As another example, the activists who've been demanding Twitter crack down on doxxing and harassment are currently organising a 24-hour boycott of the site because it didn't let a celebrity post someone's private number and get her followers to harass them, because what they really meant is that the site should ban other people who they detest, that it should use its power to silence their enemies.

ionised 9y ago

prima noctis was a myth. There is no evidence of it ever being practiced.

jaclaz 9y ago
>prima noctis was a myth. It is ius primae noctis (still there is no evidence it ever existed) or "right of the first night". "prima noctis" doesn't make much sense in Latin, it lacks the subject (ius aka right) and prima is not genitive as noctis is. It would make sense in expressions like "hora prima noctis" or "vigilia prima noctis" which translates to first hour (or vigilia, i.e. turn of vigilance, three hours long roughly) of the night and more loosely "just after sunset".

nython 9y ago

> Call me when Apple starts exercising prima noctis. https://pando.com/2014/03/27/how-steve-jobs-forced-google-to-cancel-its-plan-to-open-a-paris-office/ https://pando.com/2014/03/27/how-steve-jobs-forced-google-to...

zimpenfish 9y ago
I'm obviously not a medieval expert but how is that even vaguely related to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur

coldtea 9y ago

>I'm pretty sure Google can't wage war No, but such a service can be just be used to help win wars, blackmail politicians in other countries, spy on foreign businessmen and policy influencers, and those sorts of things... Besides corporations have a long history of meddling with local politics, hiring thugs to kill people (e.g. strikers or union leaders), even helping install dictatorships. Of course such things happen in such ways as to provide all ways of "plausible deniability" to company executives. It's not like they'll send a fax asking for such things -- "just deal with it" communicated to some local managers implies more than enough. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr.colombia https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/24/marketingandpr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

fapjacks 9y ago
Right, the whole purpose of war in the first place is to defeat your enemy's will to fight you. There are a huge number of ways to do this without an army, and Google is in a particularly powerful position to do this.
ForRealsies 9y ago
The division of Soft Power vs. Hard Power is well displayed in Trump's current Cabinet.

Verdex_3 9y ago

I appreciate your point, but I thought that I might add that many historians conclude that there is no reasonable evidence that prima noctis has actually occurred. It turns out that no matter how much power you have, there are still some lines that you have a really hard time crossing. Perhaps because it would cause an all out riot. Similarly, most countries are unable to wage war or hang people for theft because the social willpower just isn't present to allow them to do such things. Why should it be any different for companies. I think the question should be, what can a companies do that governments are also doing. Then we can look at what governments do that companies cannot do. If the first set is really big and the second set is really small, then maybe it's not really hyperbole, but just a minor exaggeration.

Iv 9y ago

Google has a foreign policy and could easily make hundreds if not thousand of activists killed around the world. It dictates the laws it wants its automated cars to obey. Apple probably has a better geolocalisation of people than any intelligence agency. Facebook and Twitter are suspected to have delivered the key to the last US presidential elections. Uber mocks the laws of several of the richest countries in the world. Softbank is becoming a behemoth that God knows if it will ever stop growing fat of its robots and AI acquisition. AI research is driven by web companies like Alibaba or Facebook. They are not kings, they are king makers.