4 ms·

> No. They aren't. They may make decisions that impact millions of people, but they aren't a government. They may 'govern' the technical details of their implem

> No. They aren't. They may make decisions that impact millions of people, but they aren't a government. They may 'govern' the technical details of their implementations... But they are not governments. They have rules (jurisprudence). They make rules(congressional). And they mete out punishment for not following said rules (executive). They have a standing military to enforce (lawyers in the countries of presence). Sure seems like a government to me. They certainly aren't ones I approve of. > It is CRITICAL that no one makes the mistake that these businesses are anything more than the path of least innovation to solving problems. The answer is, that some of these entities are past "businesses". When an organization resides within 20 countries, and their computing cloud and business infrastructure is everywhere, what exactly do you call that? If anything, it seems like a meta-government. Or a virtualized government over local governments. > The tech industry has a major hubris problem. They don't need people mistaking them for legitimate governments to make it even worse. You are adding "legitimized". Nobody would say that Duterte's government is legitimate. Or the large handful of tin-pot dictators. The Googles, Amazons, Microsofts of the world are indeed governments. But they are amoral capitalist dictators. > Every person needs to understand that no software product is really a big thing. The reason they SEEM big is the sheer data magnitudes involved. Most of which the layman has no real concept of. It's because software is a multiplier of work that we've never seen the likes before. What better use can be had with software, than controlling the proletariat? We need look no further than the degradation of ownership (IP), rental versus purchase of hardware and virtual goods, and the "Gig-ifying" of low end workers.

pluto9 9y ago
> They have a standing military to enforce (lawyers in the countries of presence). In other words, they have to use the legal authority of the actual government to enforce anything because they have none of their own. This seems to me to illustrate exactly why they are not a government. Governments have their own authority to enforce rules and their own means of doing it.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  They do have the legal authority of their own platform. they are the king of their area, as in divine right of kings sense. It is indeed true they do not have the divine right over the physical area and the organizational structure physically. That's because many governments in which tech companies have presence are quite stable. Take away that stability, and absolutely yes the companies will hire private militaries to enforce their rule. But your argument is that companies don't have physical divine right of kings - so they aren't sovereign. But we'll just hand-wave away the fact that they indeed do retain that power over their company and all the serfs who want to use the company's infrastructure.
  - pluto9 9y ago
    That's called property rights. They have the same authority over their platform and its members that I have over my house and anyone who wants to use it. Owning property does not make me or anyone else "sovereign" in any meaningful way.
    - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
      > Owning property does not make me or anyone else "sovereign" in any meaningful way. The US does. And then they delineate national ownership to people/corporations. Property taxes are the upkeep to maintain the ledger in the governmental database(s). And the Government makes laws (congress), adjudicates laws, and enforces laws. Yeah, "does not make .. sovereign" indeed..
      - pluto9 9y ago
        > The US does You and I must have a very different idea of what sovereignty means in the context of governments. Owning property does not make me, Facebook, or anyone else a sovereign government.

pluto9 9y ago

> They have a standing military to enforce (lawyers in the countries of presence). In other words, they have to use the legal authority of the actual government to enforce anything because they have none of their own. This seems to me to illustrate exactly why they are not a government. Governments have their own authority to enforce rules and their own means of doing it.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
They do have the legal authority of their own platform. they are the king of their area, as in divine right of kings sense. It is indeed true they do not have the divine right over the physical area and the organizational structure physically. That's because many governments in which tech companies have presence are quite stable. Take away that stability, and absolutely yes the companies will hire private militaries to enforce their rule. But your argument is that companies don't have physical divine right of kings - so they aren't sovereign. But we'll just hand-wave away the fact that they indeed do retain that power over their company and all the serfs who want to use the company's infrastructure.
- pluto9 9y ago
  That's called property rights. They have the same authority over their platform and its members that I have over my house and anyone who wants to use it. Owning property does not make me or anyone else "sovereign" in any meaningful way.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    > Owning property does not make me or anyone else "sovereign" in any meaningful way. The US does. And then they delineate national ownership to people/corporations. Property taxes are the upkeep to maintain the ledger in the governmental database(s). And the Government makes laws (congress), adjudicates laws, and enforces laws. Yeah, "does not make .. sovereign" indeed..
    - pluto9 9y ago
      > The US does You and I must have a very different idea of what sovereignty means in the context of governments. Owning property does not make me, Facebook, or anyone else a sovereign government.