2 ms·

> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript I have an issue with Facebook doing this to OTHER PEOPLE and thus dramatically influencing the world I liv

> If you have an issue with this, disable javascript I have an issue with Facebook doing this to OTHER PEOPLE and thus dramatically influencing the world I live in. I can and do block their Javascript, but that doesn't block it for others. The idea that our decisions are just independent and everyone can decide for themselves is (A) wrong in terms of how we are affected by decisions made by others (B) anti-social and (C) denies the reality of organized power. If Facebook had to just be a bunch of unorganized, separate, independent people instead of a company with organized structure, they'd not have the power they have. They have power because of their organized structure. The idea that the other side of thing (the regular citizens) should only act as isolated individuals while the companies act as enormous organized power is ridiculous.

wruza 9y ago
If it has so much influence, then it must be controlled by more powerful superiors than just that Zuck guy, isn’t it. He must be thankful for they to leave him a possibility to sell t-shirts.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  That sounds like a tautology along the lines of Creationist thinking (this is so well-designed, it must have a designer…) If there are more powerful superiors, then wouldn't the same argument apply? They must be powerful because they have superiors, etc. etc. ad absurdem… My point wasn't that any ONE person (Zuck or anyone) is all powerful or influential. The point is that SOLIDARITY i.e. ORGANIZATION itself confers power on the organization. Organized power might be distributed where no one person can dictate the organization's direction. Or it might have an all-powerful-dictator. Either way, organizing confers power to the organized entity. Corporations are powerful, even though they are constrained in various ways and the power is wielded by a mix of actors within the corporation. Consumers / citizens who each act unilaterally have less power even though their aggregate decisions can have powerful effects in the market (because they are disorganized, they can only choose from what the supply side offers, we don't get true demand-driven products). Organized power doesn't necessarily mean top-down either. See the Starfish and the Spider (book about decentralization). Decentralized entities are more persistent (no single head to cut off to kill them), but decentralized ≠ unorganized.

wruza 9y ago

If it has so much influence, then it must be controlled by more powerful superiors than just that Zuck guy, isn’t it. He must be thankful for they to leave him a possibility to sell t-shirts.

quadrangle 9y ago
That sounds like a tautology along the lines of Creationist thinking (this is so well-designed, it must have a designer…) If there are more powerful superiors, then wouldn't the same argument apply? They must be powerful because they have superiors, etc. etc. ad absurdem… My point wasn't that any ONE person (Zuck or anyone) is all powerful or influential. The point is that SOLIDARITY i.e. ORGANIZATION itself confers power on the organization. Organized power might be distributed where no one person can dictate the organization's direction. Or it might have an all-powerful-dictator. Either way, organizing confers power to the organized entity. Corporations are powerful, even though they are constrained in various ways and the power is wielded by a mix of actors within the corporation. Consumers / citizens who each act unilaterally have less power even though their aggregate decisions can have powerful effects in the market (because they are disorganized, they can only choose from what the supply side offers, we don't get true demand-driven products). Organized power doesn't necessarily mean top-down either. See the Starfish and the Spider (book about decentralization). Decentralized entities are more persistent (no single head to cut off to kill them), but decentralized ≠ unorganized.