5 ms·

> if you're going to invade privacy on a massive scale, you better be ready for the consequences. Like a job at Google/Facebook, where you'll continue invading

by 659087 9y ago

> if you're going to invade privacy on a massive scale, you better be ready for the consequences. Like a job at Google/Facebook, where you'll continue invading privacy on a massive scale?

propogandist 9y ago
"Alexa, what's a tele-screen?"
- 659087 9y ago
  "At Amazon, a telescreen is known as an 'Echo Show'. Would you like 'free' 2-day shipping with that?"
dqpb 9y ago
I like Google and Facebook. They provide a lot of value to a lot of people, invest in R&D, and contribute to the open source community. I've seen an uptick of negativity on HN lately, especially targeted at the big SV companies. Not intelligent criticism mind you, just basic trolling. For example your account appears to be 99% dedicated to shitting on SV companies.
- hueving 9y ago
  Google and Facebook have been terrible for open source on the whole despite their contributions to some projects. It is more difficult to run open source on your handset than it is on your desktop/laptop/server and Google wants it that way to ensure you are sucked into their ecosystem of data collection. And handsets outnumber PCs. Google is directly participating in the destruction of open source computing at the consumer level while distracting us with contributions to a few projects. Facebook is attempting to kill all open communication protocols and force everyone to communicate through their platform with powerful network effects. Anything they have done for open source is dwarfed by the decades they have set us back in open communication and privacy.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  I like Google and Facebook. They provide a lot of value to a lot of people, invest in R&D, and contribute to the open source community. The same can be said of most monopolies, like AT&T in the 70's , Bell Labs did top notch research, and the highly reliable phone network provided huge value to people and businesses alike. Although it did have high value, it also had a high cost to the consumer and few people want to go back to the days of paying $30/month for local phone service (plus $3.99 if you want to use touch tone), and spending $7 for a 10 minute cross country call.
- crispinb 9y ago
  > Google and Facebook .. provide a lot of value to a lot of people, invest in R&D, and contribute to the open source community. VS > Facebook is attempting to kill all open communication protocols and force everyone to communicate through their platform with powerful network effects. There's no contradiction here. Both can be true at the same time. Large organisations (government & commercial alike) have even less of a fixed & permanent nature than do individuals, and can carry out huge numbers of activities in parallel, some harmful, some beneficial. You can try some sort of rough consequentialist calculus on an organisation's overall benefits / harms to society, which is complex and subjective to an extent that gives almost completely free play to prejudice. Alternatively you can look at the systems within which organisations grow and assess the functioning of the whole thing. I think this is the more powerful approach, having more potential for sidelining empty moralising. Personally I believe that for fundamental reasons, hypergrowth-oriented technological society inevitably leads to the destruction of everything of value (in truth a subject for a book, not a forum comment). Facebook & Google are natural & unwitting agents of these fundamental forces. At the same time, decent & capable humans work for them in large numbers, so inevitably make positive countervailing contributions.
yters 9y ago
This always gets me, too. Everyone targets the NSA, while freely giving away all their private email and internet activity (and now meatspace activity) to private companies without any of the oversight that NSA is subjected to. We really have no idea what G/F do with it all, and have no way to find out. Whereas with the NSA there exist many avenues to make sure it is not abused.
- 659087 9y ago
  I've always seen those companies as the commercial wing of the NSA/CIA. I view them as one and the same.
  - yters 9y ago
    Well yes, both have In-Q-Tel ties, and a former member of the CIA was on Facebook's original advisory board. Even more reason to not give these huge tech companies a pass.

by 659087 9y ago

> if you're going to invade privacy on a massive scale, you better be ready for the consequences. Like a job at Google/Facebook, where you'll continue invading privacy on a massive scale?

propogandist 9y ago

"Alexa, what's a tele-screen?"

659087 9y ago
"At Amazon, a telescreen is known as an 'Echo Show'. Would you like 'free' 2-day shipping with that?"

dqpb 9y ago

I like Google and Facebook. They provide a lot of value to a lot of people, invest in R&D, and contribute to the open source community. I've seen an uptick of negativity on HN lately, especially targeted at the big SV companies. Not intelligent criticism mind you, just basic trolling. For example your account appears to be 99% dedicated to shitting on SV companies.

hueving 9y ago
Google and Facebook have been terrible for open source on the whole despite their contributions to some projects. It is more difficult to run open source on your handset than it is on your desktop/laptop/server and Google wants it that way to ensure you are sucked into their ecosystem of data collection. And handsets outnumber PCs. Google is directly participating in the destruction of open source computing at the consumer level while distracting us with contributions to a few projects. Facebook is attempting to kill all open communication protocols and force everyone to communicate through their platform with powerful network effects. Anything they have done for open source is dwarfed by the decades they have set us back in open communication and privacy.
Johnny555 9y ago
I like Google and Facebook. They provide a lot of value to a lot of people, invest in R&D, and contribute to the open source community. The same can be said of most monopolies, like AT&T in the 70's , Bell Labs did top notch research, and the highly reliable phone network provided huge value to people and businesses alike. Although it did have high value, it also had a high cost to the consumer and few people want to go back to the days of paying $30/month for local phone service (plus $3.99 if you want to use touch tone), and spending $7 for a 10 minute cross country call.
crispinb 9y ago
> Google and Facebook .. provide a lot of value to a lot of people, invest in R&D, and contribute to the open source community. VS > Facebook is attempting to kill all open communication protocols and force everyone to communicate through their platform with powerful network effects. There's no contradiction here. Both can be true at the same time. Large organisations (government & commercial alike) have even less of a fixed & permanent nature than do individuals, and can carry out huge numbers of activities in parallel, some harmful, some beneficial. You can try some sort of rough consequentialist calculus on an organisation's overall benefits / harms to society, which is complex and subjective to an extent that gives almost completely free play to prejudice. Alternatively you can look at the systems within which organisations grow and assess the functioning of the whole thing. I think this is the more powerful approach, having more potential for sidelining empty moralising. Personally I believe that for fundamental reasons, hypergrowth-oriented technological society inevitably leads to the destruction of everything of value (in truth a subject for a book, not a forum comment). Facebook & Google are natural & unwitting agents of these fundamental forces. At the same time, decent & capable humans work for them in large numbers, so inevitably make positive countervailing contributions.

yters 9y ago

This always gets me, too. Everyone targets the NSA, while freely giving away all their private email and internet activity (and now meatspace activity) to private companies without any of the oversight that NSA is subjected to. We really have no idea what G/F do with it all, and have no way to find out. Whereas with the NSA there exist many avenues to make sure it is not abused.

659087 9y ago
I've always seen those companies as the commercial wing of the NSA/CIA. I view them as one and the same.
- yters 9y ago
  Well yes, both have In-Q-Tel ties, and a former member of the CIA was on Facebook's original advisory board. Even more reason to not give these huge tech companies a pass.