4 ms·

I don't like the choice. It's a matter of being ~abused. With analytics, many large companies are so powerful they can manipulate my emotions and decisions. Ef

I don't like the choice. It's a matter of being ~abused. With analytics, many large companies are so powerful they can manipulate my emotions and decisions. Effectively they can choose what I will do. It's true that people and small companies have always done that, but I'm on a relatively level playing field with them. With these massive corporations, I can do pretty close to nothing about it. And in many cases we're talking about companies so big they're as powerful or more powerful that whole countries. The government could arrest someone I love and hold them under administrative detention because they'd decided "type of person X" is bad for the Party. But Facebook manipulate people's emotions - someone with that kind of power could encourage those who they don't like to commit suicide or acts of terror. It's not obvious to me that 1984 would have be different if we realised that the Party was democratically elected every four years and had merely manipulated everyone using a private service into voluntarily acting that way.

Consultant32452 9y ago
There's an important difference between corporations and governments. Corporations rarely get a monopoly and in the event that they do they don't last forever. Once a government gets power it almost always keeps it forever.
- isostatic 9y ago
  May Cameron Brown Blair Major Thatcher That's a lot of change in 30 years to be "forever" In the u.s Trump Obama Bush Ii Clinton Bush I
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Perspective is everything I guess. For the issues I care about most the difference between those US Presidents is largely cosmetic. So I would have presented them as evidence in my favor.
    - isostatic 9y ago
      A key reason they stay in power is because of private companies and people who fund both campaigns, something which America seems to think is fine.
- amirmc 9y ago
  Consumer tech corporations, do seem to end up with monopolies — and they'll fight, lobby, and pay (through acquisitions) to keep them. It's a complete red-herring to argue that they don't last forever since that's utterly irrelevant to the impact they can have while they are around. Google's been around for almost 20 years now, FB didn't kill it. FB has been around for 14 years and can sway elections. If you want privacy from government, then you'll only get it if you can be private from corporations. They basically run things anyway via lobbyists.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    FB today can't sway elections any more than CBS of the past could.
    - amirmc 9y ago
      You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit. CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigger impact since (specifically with respect to scale and ability for fine-grained targeting).
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        >You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit. No I'm not. I'm acknowledging that advertising has always worked. >CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigger impact since (specifically with respect to scale and ability for fine-grained targeting). I think you're over-estimating FB's ability to impact elections compared to being one of only 3 television channels. Particularly given the fact that we're not really talking about FB itself impacting the election, but competing parties utilizing the semi-neutral FB platform to advertise.

Consultant32452 9y ago

There's an important difference between corporations and governments. Corporations rarely get a monopoly and in the event that they do they don't last forever. Once a government gets power it almost always keeps it forever.

isostatic 9y ago
May Cameron Brown Blair Major Thatcher That's a lot of change in 30 years to be "forever" In the u.s Trump Obama Bush Ii Clinton Bush I
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Perspective is everything I guess. For the issues I care about most the difference between those US Presidents is largely cosmetic. So I would have presented them as evidence in my favor.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    A key reason they stay in power is because of private companies and people who fund both campaigns, something which America seems to think is fine.
amirmc 9y ago
Consumer tech corporations, do seem to end up with monopolies — and they'll fight, lobby, and pay (through acquisitions) to keep them. It's a complete red-herring to argue that they don't last forever since that's utterly irrelevant to the impact they can have while they are around. Google's been around for almost 20 years now, FB didn't kill it. FB has been around for 14 years and can sway elections. If you want privacy from government, then you'll only get it if you can be private from corporations. They basically run things anyway via lobbyists.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  FB today can't sway elections any more than CBS of the past could.
  - amirmc 9y ago
    You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit. CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigger impact since (specifically with respect to scale and ability for fine-grained targeting).
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      >You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit. No I'm not. I'm acknowledging that advertising has always worked. >CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigger impact since (specifically with respect to scale and ability for fine-grained targeting). I think you're over-estimating FB's ability to impact elections compared to being one of only 3 television channels. Particularly given the fact that we're not really talking about FB itself impacting the election, but competing parties utilizing the semi-neutral FB platform to advertise.