4 ms·
Do you trust your government more than Microsoft? That’s what I meant to say, but I should certainly have voiced what I meant better.
by jaabe 7y ago
Do you trust your government more than Microsoft?
That’s what I meant to say, but I should certainly have voiced what I meant better.
- orangecat 7y agoDo you trust your government more than Microsoft? Absolutely not. And yes, I'm American. You're probably right that this is a core cultural difference.
- anoncake 7y agoI don't understand this. Microsoft makes decisions for its own benefit 100% of the time. Politicians sometimes make decisions for their own benefit, but sometimes they make decisions for the benefit of the public. No matter how corrupt your politicians are, how can they possibly be less trustworthy than Microsoft?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoI think the issue is with power, not intentions. Microsoft may make selfish decisions 100% of the time, but there's only so much impact they can have. The government has monopoly on violence, implemented through army and law enforcement, and can also make your life painful (or end it) in countless less direct ways - like monetary policies, healthcare policies, welfare policies, etc.
- anoncake 7y agoUltimately, what the government can do is only limited by the country's constitution. Not doing beneficial things doesn't reduce its ability to bad things.
- return1 7y ago> Microsoft makes decisions for its own benefit 100% of the time. The nature of decisions is completely different. Microsoft cannot put you in jail, confiscate your property etc. Also, microsoft has outlived a ton of governments who lost the trust of the public.
- anoncake 7y ago> Microsoft cannot put you in jail, confiscate your property etc. Without a data protection law, the government can put you in jail and confiscate your property. Companies can spy on you. With a data protection law, the government can put you in jail and confiscate your property. Companies cannot spy on you.
- orangecat 7y agoWith a data protection law, the government can put you in jail and confiscate your property. Companies cannot spy on you. What you call spying, others would call a preferable alternative to directly paying for services.
- anoncake 7y agoWhich is absurd but has nothing to do with trusting the government.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- return1 7y agoArguing that somehow being targeted with ads to make $$$ is worse than being jailed / having your property taken is kind of tone deaf.
- anoncake 7y agoI didn't.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoAll entities make decisions for their own benefit 100% of the time. Where you come out ahead is when their interests coincide with yours. That works out rather poorly against large governments, because businesses can lose customers by misbehaving, but a government with 55% of the vote doesn't need any more than that and can then do anything they want to the remaining 45% of the people. Especially if they can convince their own supporters that the victims are the villains -- then they can set you on fire and still get re-elected.
- anoncake 7y ago> All entities make decisions for their own benefit 100% of the time. Then I must have met a lot of non-entities in my life. Don't assume everyone is like you.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoDon't assume you know what "for their own benefit" means. It doesn't mean not doing things that benefit society, it means not willingly hitting yourself in the face with a hammer. People do things to help other people because it builds goodwill and reputation, and because they're a large enough entity that doing something that costs them $5 and makes everyone including them $6 each will still result in a $1 profit, and because of Hofstadter's theory of super-rationality, and because they care what happens to their kids, and a hundred other reasons. Nobody but an idiot does things that are purely destructive to themselves and everyone around them.
- anoncake 7y agoSorry for assuming that you don't redefine "for their own benefit" to something useless and idiosyncratic.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoWhy are you constantly arguing in bad faith? "For their own benefit" means literally what the words say -- something that benefits them. Your wrong assumption is that socially beneficial acts can't benefit individuals. That's something we can argue about, but you don't have to be a self-righteous jerk about everything. That doesn't benefit anybody.