4 ms·

As well it should. Can you name a company that you trust?

MR4D 8y ago
Apple. But for a different reason than you might think. They’ve now made so many promises about privacy that if they renew on those promises (ie such that they were lying), then their will be shareholder and other lawsuits till the end of time. Tim Cook would be in court for a decade. Pretty darn good incentive to keep to their path.
- extralego 8y ago
  Is it recent that shareholder lawsuits started serving this purpose of cryptic and costly checks and balances? Might this arrangement only exist because the Apple brand depends on a level of dignificafion somewhere above Surveillance State Overlord? It’s not nearly as comforting for me as it seems to be for you, but I guess it’s a decent point in this situation.
  - MR4D 8y ago
    The rule that allows class actions has been in place since 1966, but has taken different meanings (due to both changes in the law and court interpretations) since that time. In the case of a misleading material statement (which this type of case would fall under) legal remedies go back to the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibit such statements. [0] I agree, it's not the most comforting, and worse, it would be a long, protracted battle that could easily last the better part of a decade. My gut feel is that such an event would be brutal on management and the stock price for years, so any rational manager would do everything they could to avoid that situation. [0] - IANAL, but I do work as a licensed practitioner in the securities industry.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Apple in China gave all their customer data to the China government including encryption keys. Versus Google chose to leave China after the government tried to hack Gmail accounts. "Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users" https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Would seem one gave up privacy for a buck and the other did not.
extralego 8y ago
Right. And I don’t trust the author has such a poor understanding of this topic as he claims. Trust in the traditional sense is a very expensive operation. If delivered on the level of a local storefront small business, for example, it might be worth asking whether the result of corporate practice justifies it’s own means. In this statement, I might be discounting the innovation allowed by organizations of such power and scale, or maybe not. That’s a separate conversation. I have worked on numerous advertising campaigns focused on “building consumer trust” in the client. That’s what they called it, anyways. There is no shortage of literature and other media on what this involves. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s for starters. Public relations does not build trust. It steals trust. Our commercial enterprises are in a deep debt of trust to their own society. But, the truly sad part is how much further we can go before we bottom out. Advertising steals trust much like how finance steals capital, but the absence of numbers makes the damage even more difficult to count.
- tmpz22 8y ago
  My inference is that trust is sectarian. In America people trust the politicians in their own political party almost implicitly. We trust our own family and social groups. When presented with an outsider we often mistrust them to some degree, at least initially. Companies that wish to appeal to broad demographics can't play this game because they can't pick sides. The companies that do pick a niche, i.e. a torrent website that advocates a free and open internet, crypto, whatever, can gain a strong following but pays a steep price in the process. Facebook and Google can never be trustworthy companies because they must appeal to advertisers and consumers at the same time.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - extralego 8y ago
    Interesting and well said. The thing about how Facebook and Google have to be neutral is super interesting. I still don’t think I completely understand why it is the case that they have to be so incredibly bland but it sounds like you’re onto it. We can remember when Facebook was the elite social media site and MySpace was the ghetto. I am inclined to suggest that the sectarian/cultural alignments you’re referring to are largely superficial; they are the product of and the content of advertising. I don’t think this takes anything away from your point, though. The heights of national comradery always align with the heights of opposition to an enemy nation. Advertising generates abstractions of this phenomenon a million times over, invoking emotions and activating sales in the name of us and them whether it’s brands, sports teams, subcultures, politicians, etc.

MR4D 8y ago

Apple. But for a different reason than you might think. They’ve now made so many promises about privacy that if they renew on those promises (ie such that they were lying), then their will be shareholder and other lawsuits till the end of time. Tim Cook would be in court for a decade. Pretty darn good incentive to keep to their path.

extralego 8y ago
Is it recent that shareholder lawsuits started serving this purpose of cryptic and costly checks and balances? Might this arrangement only exist because the Apple brand depends on a level of dignificafion somewhere above Surveillance State Overlord? It’s not nearly as comforting for me as it seems to be for you, but I guess it’s a decent point in this situation.
- MR4D 8y ago
  The rule that allows class actions has been in place since 1966, but has taken different meanings (due to both changes in the law and court interpretations) since that time. In the case of a misleading material statement (which this type of case would fall under) legal remedies go back to the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibit such statements. [0] I agree, it's not the most comforting, and worse, it would be a long, protracted battle that could easily last the better part of a decade. My gut feel is that such an event would be brutal on management and the stock price for years, so any rational manager would do everything they could to avoid that situation. [0] - IANAL, but I do work as a licensed practitioner in the securities industry.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
Apple in China gave all their customer data to the China government including encryption keys. Versus Google chose to leave China after the government tried to hack Gmail accounts. "Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users" https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy... Would seem one gave up privacy for a buck and the other did not.

extralego 8y ago

Right. And I don’t trust the author has such a poor understanding of this topic as he claims. Trust in the traditional sense is a very expensive operation. If delivered on the level of a local storefront small business, for example, it might be worth asking whether the result of corporate practice justifies it’s own means. In this statement, I might be discounting the innovation allowed by organizations of such power and scale, or maybe not. That’s a separate conversation. I have worked on numerous advertising campaigns focused on “building consumer trust” in the client. That’s what they called it, anyways. There is no shortage of literature and other media on what this involves. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s for starters. Public relations does not build trust. It steals trust. Our commercial enterprises are in a deep debt of trust to their own society. But, the truly sad part is how much further we can go before we bottom out. Advertising steals trust much like how finance steals capital, but the absence of numbers makes the damage even more difficult to count.

tmpz22 8y ago
My inference is that trust is sectarian. In America people trust the politicians in their own political party almost implicitly. We trust our own family and social groups. When presented with an outsider we often mistrust them to some degree, at least initially. Companies that wish to appeal to broad demographics can't play this game because they can't pick sides. The companies that do pick a niche, i.e. a torrent website that advocates a free and open internet, crypto, whatever, can gain a strong following but pays a steep price in the process. Facebook and Google can never be trustworthy companies because they must appeal to advertisers and consumers at the same time.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- extralego 8y ago
  Interesting and well said. The thing about how Facebook and Google have to be neutral is super interesting. I still don’t think I completely understand why it is the case that they have to be so incredibly bland but it sounds like you’re onto it. We can remember when Facebook was the elite social media site and MySpace was the ghetto. I am inclined to suggest that the sectarian/cultural alignments you’re referring to are largely superficial; they are the product of and the content of advertising. I don’t think this takes anything away from your point, though. The heights of national comradery always align with the heights of opposition to an enemy nation. Advertising generates abstractions of this phenomenon a million times over, invoking emotions and activating sales in the name of us and them whether it’s brands, sports teams, subcultures, politicians, etc.