3 ms·

For a start I wouldn't want to spend 461$ to have a vote. You know, democracy and all that. Edit (after being downvoted): why all the bad votes? What did I say

by nanairo 16y ago

For a start I wouldn't want to spend 461$ to have a vote. You know, democracy and all that. Edit (after being downvoted): why all the bad votes? What did I say that was so bad? Schmidt compared Google to a government. My point is that only shareholders can vote to oust him, and to be a shareholder I've just been informed that it would cost me 461$. How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$.

jasonlotito 16y ago
> If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$. If you live in the US, then you already have a vote without spending $461 that can affect how Google operates. If you wish to change how Google operates from within, it will cost you $461. > How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? Democracy is not about everyone having a vote. Their is a large portion of the US population that cannot vote for various reasons. As for the down votes: probably because your comment doesn't really contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I agree with you on the first point. Google (and similar data hoarders) should be regulated. A set of laws should explain what they can and can't do, for how long they can keep the data or have to publish it, etc... The problem I had was more the idea that the choice it between giving our data to the companies (without regulation) and to the government. And incidentally several government have told Google to stop certain actions, but they keep going... so clearly here there's something to solve. (I hope we agree that corporations are not above the law, no matter how big). As for your second point, that it's exactly what democracy is about. You could say that in practice no country has a perfect democracy. In terms of political philosophy, the state is a construct where each citizen gives up a little bit of its power, to get an organism that will regulate how people should live. However those same citizens can also affect the state by using their vote. Hence why everyone who makes up a country should have a vote. In reality, we negate the vote to people who we consider were not part of the original deal (i.e. they arrived into the country afterwards), or that we don't consider they know enough and understand enough to take their own choices.
- mattmcknight 16y ago
  Actually, that vote is going to cost you a significant percentage of your income.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
astine 16y ago
You can't vote in any democracy if you aren't a member. In publicly traded companies, membership is based on ownership. Ownership will cost you $461. If you are not going to contribute to the company, why should you have a vote in its policies?
- andreyf 16y ago
  The original point was that transparent government ownership of information is better than corporate ownership of information, because votes in government are relatively free/equally split, while voting in a corporation isn't.
  - kjksf 16y ago
    Except government has much more power to misuse the information and cause you harm. Google won't put you in jail, government might. Governments have too many twisted incentives to be entrusted with too much information. US happens to be one of the better governments, but how successful our voting power was to end or prevent war in Iraq? Or how about recent witchhunt against craigslist? It's not easy to find examples of government doing serious damage. Google can't start a war. I would reconsider recommendation that we give government one bit more of power over people.

by nanairo 16y ago

jasonlotito 16y ago

> If we live in a democracy then surely I should have a say without having to pay 461$. If you live in the US, then you already have a vote without spending $461 that can affect how Google operates. If you wish to change how Google operates from within, it will cost you $461. > How is democracy (eveyone has a vote), not relevant? Democracy is not about everyone having a vote. Their is a large portion of the US population that cannot vote for various reasons. As for the down votes: probably because your comment doesn't really contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion.

nanairo 16y ago
I agree with you on the first point. Google (and similar data hoarders) should be regulated. A set of laws should explain what they can and can't do, for how long they can keep the data or have to publish it, etc... The problem I had was more the idea that the choice it between giving our data to the companies (without regulation) and to the government. And incidentally several government have told Google to stop certain actions, but they keep going... so clearly here there's something to solve. (I hope we agree that corporations are not above the law, no matter how big). As for your second point, that it's exactly what democracy is about. You could say that in practice no country has a perfect democracy. In terms of political philosophy, the state is a construct where each citizen gives up a little bit of its power, to get an organism that will regulate how people should live. However those same citizens can also affect the state by using their vote. Hence why everyone who makes up a country should have a vote. In reality, we negate the vote to people who we consider were not part of the original deal (i.e. they arrived into the country afterwards), or that we don't consider they know enough and understand enough to take their own choices.
mattmcknight 16y ago
Actually, that vote is going to cost you a significant percentage of your income.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

astine 16y ago

You can't vote in any democracy if you aren't a member. In publicly traded companies, membership is based on ownership. Ownership will cost you $461. If you are not going to contribute to the company, why should you have a vote in its policies?

andreyf 16y ago
The original point was that transparent government ownership of information is better than corporate ownership of information, because votes in government are relatively free/equally split, while voting in a corporation isn't.
- kjksf 16y ago
  Except government has much more power to misuse the information and cause you harm. Google won't put you in jail, government might. Governments have too many twisted incentives to be entrusted with too much information. US happens to be one of the better governments, but how successful our voting power was to end or prevent war in Iraq? Or how about recent witchhunt against craigslist? It's not easy to find examples of government doing serious damage. Google can't start a war. I would reconsider recommendation that we give government one bit more of power over people.