5 ms·

The point which GP refers to, where corporations find they will no longer need to pay lip service, is precisely the point where governments lose that monopoly o

The point which GP refers to, where corporations find they will no longer need to pay lip service, is precisely the point where governments lose that monopoly of force. I think we have a lot to learn from how generations of infighting for control of the Roman empire led to the disintegration of civic society that allowed the Christian church to fill the power vacuum. The transition from the Principate, during which Emperors still paid lip service to the Senate, to the Dominate, where the pretense was lifted, was made possible because centuries of factionalism had destroyed the foundations that allowed checks and balances to be enforced.

busterarm 8y ago
Plenty of other countries besides China tightly control internet access. Banning Facebook in the UK would cause them a significant amount of grief and likely close their London office (Facebook is the IDP for Facebook employees). Most folks are not going to go through the trouble of setting up VPNs for their phones to connect to Facebook.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Banning Facebook in the UK would definitely have an effect at the next polls, where the party in power and the prime minister would definitely be held to account very severely. No semi-democratic country can consider this course of action unless the service is really unpopular.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    I find it unlikely that any corporation being banned would have any substantial impact in an election. After all, we’ve elected some really awful people with far worse policies. The UK voted leave. I doubt they’ll vote to defend Facebook, after they blatantly flout UK law. I’d expect that taking a stand would actually win the party in power more votes.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Don’t underestimate populism: if the UK is concerned about Facebook, it isn’t because their citizens aren’t using it! And if their citizens are using it and like using it, then they will be pissed if it’s banned. Now, maybe if the percent of Facebook users is small, there isn’t much need to worrry, but if it’s above 10 or 20%, then that is more than enough to easily turn an election. China had no problem banning gmail even though it was popular there because no one had to suffer through an election for the decision. The UK doesn’t have that luxury.
- antihero 8y ago
  I think it would be extremely electorally damaging to ban such a major site, because it would affect so many people, even if people aren't hugely openly fond of Facebook, there would be a huge amount of outrage and anger that the government has cut people off, even if it was for the right reasons.
randomsearch 8y ago
In addition: consider that “force” also relates to actions online. A government may be able to arrest employees of a company on its soil, but consider the consequences of Google turning off gmail/google access in the UK. Not parity, but that power is real and something governments should be worried about.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  I imagine more the reams and reams of data that Google (and the rest of FAANG) has stored on each and every citizen, including those elected to power. They could utterly destroy virtually anyone sitting in office politically with a few keystrokes.
  - anpago 8y ago
    That also goes the other way what does 5 Eyes have on those in FAANG?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    > They could utterly destroy virtually anyone sitting in office politically with a few keystrokes. I don't think this is necessarily true. The Mayor of Toronto admitted to smoking cocaine, and after that regained his former seat on the city council. The blackmail attempt on Bezos just recently. Trump is president, despite the mountains of dirt on it. Bill and Hillary Clinton are still touring. I don't think the electorate cares if you're caught doing anything adults do, and low level corruption seems to be the norm in many developed democracies. What could any of the large data-whore companies possibly have on anyone that would utterly destroy?
- simonh 8y ago
  It would harm google far more than it would harm any government. Google users in other countries would abandon them en mass for alternative services, in case the same thing happened to them. It doesn’t even matter much whose fault it was.

busterarm 8y ago

Plenty of other countries besides China tightly control internet access. Banning Facebook in the UK would cause them a significant amount of grief and likely close their London office (Facebook is the IDP for Facebook employees). Most folks are not going to go through the trouble of setting up VPNs for their phones to connect to Facebook.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Banning Facebook in the UK would definitely have an effect at the next polls, where the party in power and the prime minister would definitely be held to account very severely. No semi-democratic country can consider this course of action unless the service is really unpopular.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  I find it unlikely that any corporation being banned would have any substantial impact in an election. After all, we’ve elected some really awful people with far worse policies. The UK voted leave. I doubt they’ll vote to defend Facebook, after they blatantly flout UK law. I’d expect that taking a stand would actually win the party in power more votes.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    Don’t underestimate populism: if the UK is concerned about Facebook, it isn’t because their citizens aren’t using it! And if their citizens are using it and like using it, then they will be pissed if it’s banned. Now, maybe if the percent of Facebook users is small, there isn’t much need to worrry, but if it’s above 10 or 20%, then that is more than enough to easily turn an election. China had no problem banning gmail even though it was popular there because no one had to suffer through an election for the decision. The UK doesn’t have that luxury.
antihero 8y ago
I think it would be extremely electorally damaging to ban such a major site, because it would affect so many people, even if people aren't hugely openly fond of Facebook, there would be a huge amount of outrage and anger that the government has cut people off, even if it was for the right reasons.

randomsearch 8y ago

In addition: consider that “force” also relates to actions online. A government may be able to arrest employees of a company on its soil, but consider the consequences of Google turning off gmail/google access in the UK. Not parity, but that power is real and something governments should be worried about.

Rooster61 8y ago
I imagine more the reams and reams of data that Google (and the rest of FAANG) has stored on each and every citizen, including those elected to power. They could utterly destroy virtually anyone sitting in office politically with a few keystrokes.
- anpago 8y ago
  That also goes the other way what does 5 Eyes have on those in FAANG?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  > They could utterly destroy virtually anyone sitting in office politically with a few keystrokes. I don't think this is necessarily true. The Mayor of Toronto admitted to smoking cocaine, and after that regained his former seat on the city council. The blackmail attempt on Bezos just recently. Trump is president, despite the mountains of dirt on it. Bill and Hillary Clinton are still touring. I don't think the electorate cares if you're caught doing anything adults do, and low level corruption seems to be the norm in many developed democracies. What could any of the large data-whore companies possibly have on anyone that would utterly destroy?
simonh 8y ago
It would harm google far more than it would harm any government. Google users in other countries would abandon them en mass for alternative services, in case the same thing happened to them. It doesn’t even matter much whose fault it was.