3 ms·

Yeah, the idea of companies becoming capable of widespread surveillance because of the size of their data set is also bothersome to me. But because it is so har

Yeah, the idea of companies becoming capable of widespread surveillance because of the size of their data set is also bothersome to me. But because it is so hard to define what that fuzzy line is (between an acceptable amount of data and too much data), it's too arbitrary for me to draw a line in the sand at all. Which might seem wild, but it's actually pretty consistent with the amount of trust we put in companies right now. Facebook could arguably do some nebulous bad thing with their facial recognition data. AT&T can definitely know who you are calling on any call that goes through their POTS system. But we don't have a ban on diagnostic tools for large telephone providers out of fear that they'd abuse their position - I see no reason to ban a technology of large social network providers for the same fear. [0] It comes down to trust - as soon as one of these companies did abuse their position to do something widely evil, the market consequences would be dire (to say nothing of the reactionary legislation). [0] Possibly a poor example, considering anti-trust w/r/t Bell growing too large - but that kind of regulatory intervention I would hope could be applied equally to either class of company should they be determined a monopoly.

AlexandrB 7y ago
> Facebook could arguably do some nebulous bad thing with their facial recognition data. Theo already did a bad thing with their picture data by applying facial recognition to it! I never consented to this use of my pictures and am explicitly against it. Yet they did it anyway. Hence the lawsuit.
exergy 7y ago
> It comes down to trust - as soon as one of these companies did abuse their position to do something widely evil, the market consequences would be dire... HAHAHAHAHA. No. Look at Nestle/Coca Cola/Pepsi sucking the earth dry of precious driking water. Or the fallout for bankers over the 2008 recession. Or VW. Or Equifax making merry with your social security number. Or Deepwater horizon. Or Cambridge Analytica. Or... you get the point. I'd argue the market has precious few fucks to give about outright evil deeds. There are countless examples of corporations pillaging and raping the earth for short term gains, and the market thanks them for it. Free market efficiency is true for only a very narrow range of operating parameters, and regulations are very much needed for tackling th ebig picture. The bottomline being, given a fuzzy outline of the line in the sand, I'd still rather the government shoot for it. If they fall short by too much, we'll know soon enough because symptoms will persist. If they go too FAR, well, that's perhaps even better because I'd rather the default stance on new things be conservative skepticism and caution, and then we slowly allow more things once we deem them acceptable.
- scifi6546 7y ago
  I would argue trust is a big part of it. My counter example: Apple. Apple is a massive company that could collect massive sums of valuable data. Althoguh they do act like a monopoly in many respects (cough cough T2) they do not abuse data that they could collect. I think the reason for that is they want some level of trust from consumers. They do abuse their position of power but they do not do very much 'creepy' things like google, MS, Amazon, or Facebook
  - exergy 7y ago
    I sort of get what you're saying. A lot of formerly-anti-Apple people have started looking at them with new eyes because of their welcome stance on privacy. But even with the Apple example, aren't they the most valuable company on Earth? Despite having anti-consumer policies like removing the 3.5mm jack or making their laptops nigh-on irrepairable. Clearly the market shrugs at those 'tradeoffs' in exchange for Apple shifting more product more quickly. This is what I mean by the market not being the perfect device to self-regulate. Perhaps on a VERY long term scale, but not on human time scales.

AlexandrB 7y ago

> Facebook could arguably do some nebulous bad thing with their facial recognition data. Theo already did a bad thing with their picture data by applying facial recognition to it! I never consented to this use of my pictures and am explicitly against it. Yet they did it anyway. Hence the lawsuit.

exergy 7y ago

> It comes down to trust - as soon as one of these companies did abuse their position to do something widely evil, the market consequences would be dire... HAHAHAHAHA. No. Look at Nestle/Coca Cola/Pepsi sucking the earth dry of precious driking water. Or the fallout for bankers over the 2008 recession. Or VW. Or Equifax making merry with your social security number. Or Deepwater horizon. Or Cambridge Analytica. Or... you get the point. I'd argue the market has precious few fucks to give about outright evil deeds. There are countless examples of corporations pillaging and raping the earth for short term gains, and the market thanks them for it. Free market efficiency is true for only a very narrow range of operating parameters, and regulations are very much needed for tackling th ebig picture. The bottomline being, given a fuzzy outline of the line in the sand, I'd still rather the government shoot for it. If they fall short by too much, we'll know soon enough because symptoms will persist. If they go too FAR, well, that's perhaps even better because I'd rather the default stance on new things be conservative skepticism and caution, and then we slowly allow more things once we deem them acceptable.

scifi6546 7y ago
I would argue trust is a big part of it. My counter example: Apple. Apple is a massive company that could collect massive sums of valuable data. Althoguh they do act like a monopoly in many respects (cough cough T2) they do not abuse data that they could collect. I think the reason for that is they want some level of trust from consumers. They do abuse their position of power but they do not do very much 'creepy' things like google, MS, Amazon, or Facebook
- exergy 7y ago
  I sort of get what you're saying. A lot of formerly-anti-Apple people have started looking at them with new eyes because of their welcome stance on privacy. But even with the Apple example, aren't they the most valuable company on Earth? Despite having anti-consumer policies like removing the 3.5mm jack or making their laptops nigh-on irrepairable. Clearly the market shrugs at those 'tradeoffs' in exchange for Apple shifting more product more quickly. This is what I mean by the market not being the perfect device to self-regulate. Perhaps on a VERY long term scale, but not on human time scales.