7 ms·

> Big Tech is not breaking any laws or violating anyone's rights. Perhaps in a legal sense, but most people criticizing Big Tech policies aren't debating what

> Big Tech is not breaking any laws or violating anyone's rights. Perhaps in a legal sense, but most people criticizing Big Tech policies aren't debating what is or isn't legal under current laws, but rather what should or should not be legal. Current laws give monopolies and corporations an enormous amount of freedom and leniency, and perhaps a certain degree of power and societal importance should entail greater restraints.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
If what Big Tech does violates no law, personal rights, nor any contractual agreement with users, it is not rational to believe users can hold Big Tech accountable. Sure, they can debate and complain. The online forums and messaging platforms they use to debate and voice their complaints are run by Big Tech. It achieves nothing really. Maybe it makes users feel better to vent. Big Tech knows how to deal with the whining. The threat of having to change their behaviour is negligible. If there was a possibility they could be sued for this behaviour, then the threat might become non-negigible. The "legal sense" matters because it is a threat the company's management would take seriously. The threat of "people complaining about us on the internet" is not a serious one. It costs very little, often nothing, to make it go away.
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  I don't know what your point is. Nobody is claiming the complaining on an internet forum will directly change the law. But it is obviously possible that this online discourse will lead to a movement ultimately influencing elected lawmakers to change the law.
  - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
    The point is that people think the government is going to solve this problem of Big Tech. "[I]t is possible that the online discourse will lead to a movement ultimately influenceing elected lawmakers to change the law." Sadly, there are no "Ralph Naders" in the age of Big Tech. Who is going to lead this movement to pass these new laws? Is "online discourse" really the level of pressure needed? Do lawmakers normally read "online discourse"? We know they follow mainstream media. The discourse I see seems to focus solely on "government regulation". Regulatory capture, fines and so forth. I am suggesting that the discourse should also focus on "what rights should every user have against Big Tech". Not relying on government to police behaviour but focusing on empowering users to enforce their rights on their own initiative. Which do you think stimulates change in how websites operate? A law that users can enforce at any time or the one where we have to wait and hope that government regulators decide to act? A law that potentially enables an unknown number of users to keep filing lawsuits or one where Google/Facebook can pay a fine and move on, without ever admitting any wrongdoing. The discourse is not contemplating enabling private action. It focuses almost solely on the promise of future government regulation.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      A democratic government is, in principle, (and more often in theory than in practice) a way for individuals to collectively express their wishes. Including reining in misbehaving corporations. The reason so much discourse is contemplating government regulation is because, in democracy, government regulation is private action of citizens. And arguably, only in this concentrated form it has a chance to oppose the concentrated interests of wealthy private individuals at the steers of corporations.
      - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
        What about the "discourse" where commenters submit ideas to the effect of "This should be illlegal." Do they realise that, like government regulation, that would leave discretion over enforcement to a third party, e.g., a prosecutor. It is possible to have a regulatory framework and a criminal code aimed at Big Tech that is, in practice, never enforced, rarely enforced, or enforced arbitrarily. Giving users a private remedy against tech companies, letting them initiate actions in response to wrongdoing, does not mean anyone has to forgo democratic government, government regulation, law enforcement, and so on. It is just something that as far as I can see is not getting any focus in popular discussions about the evils of Big Tech. We watch as people bring factually-supported cases over large scale privacy violations but they always fail in the courts because there is no law that is truly adequate to bring them under. The existing law requires actual injury. It reflects a time before the ubiquity of computer networks, let alone the widespread practice of using them for dragnet surveillance on the public as a business model.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Fair. But that would, at least in the US, require a complete overhaul of the justice system. As it is, the justice belongs to those who can spend more on lawyers, so few individuals are willing to accept a realistic risk of having their lives forever ruined on the off chance they'll win against a corporation that can easily outspend them in court.
        6y ago

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

If what Big Tech does violates no law, personal rights, nor any contractual agreement with users, it is not rational to believe users can hold Big Tech accountable. Sure, they can debate and complain. The online forums and messaging platforms they use to debate and voice their complaints are run by Big Tech. It achieves nothing really. Maybe it makes users feel better to vent. Big Tech knows how to deal with the whining. The threat of having to change their behaviour is negligible. If there was a possibility they could be sued for this behaviour, then the threat might become non-negigible. The "legal sense" matters because it is a threat the company's management would take seriously. The threat of "people complaining about us on the internet" is not a serious one. It costs very little, often nothing, to make it go away.

JSavageOne 6y ago
I don't know what your point is. Nobody is claiming the complaining on an internet forum will directly change the law. But it is obviously possible that this online discourse will lead to a movement ultimately influencing elected lawmakers to change the law.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  The point is that people think the government is going to solve this problem of Big Tech. "[I]t is possible that the online discourse will lead to a movement ultimately influenceing elected lawmakers to change the law." Sadly, there are no "Ralph Naders" in the age of Big Tech. Who is going to lead this movement to pass these new laws? Is "online discourse" really the level of pressure needed? Do lawmakers normally read "online discourse"? We know they follow mainstream media. The discourse I see seems to focus solely on "government regulation". Regulatory capture, fines and so forth. I am suggesting that the discourse should also focus on "what rights should every user have against Big Tech". Not relying on government to police behaviour but focusing on empowering users to enforce their rights on their own initiative. Which do you think stimulates change in how websites operate? A law that users can enforce at any time or the one where we have to wait and hope that government regulators decide to act? A law that potentially enables an unknown number of users to keep filing lawsuits or one where Google/Facebook can pay a fine and move on, without ever admitting any wrongdoing. The discourse is not contemplating enabling private action. It focuses almost solely on the promise of future government regulation.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    A democratic government is, in principle, (and more often in theory than in practice) a way for individuals to collectively express their wishes. Including reining in misbehaving corporations. The reason so much discourse is contemplating government regulation is because, in democracy, government regulation is private action of citizens. And arguably, only in this concentrated form it has a chance to oppose the concentrated interests of wealthy private individuals at the steers of corporations.
    - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
      What about the "discourse" where commenters submit ideas to the effect of "This should be illlegal." Do they realise that, like government regulation, that would leave discretion over enforcement to a third party, e.g., a prosecutor. It is possible to have a regulatory framework and a criminal code aimed at Big Tech that is, in practice, never enforced, rarely enforced, or enforced arbitrarily. Giving users a private remedy against tech companies, letting them initiate actions in response to wrongdoing, does not mean anyone has to forgo democratic government, government regulation, law enforcement, and so on. It is just something that as far as I can see is not getting any focus in popular discussions about the evils of Big Tech. We watch as people bring factually-supported cases over large scale privacy violations but they always fail in the courts because there is no law that is truly adequate to bring them under. The existing law requires actual injury. It reflects a time before the ubiquity of computer networks, let alone the widespread practice of using them for dragnet surveillance on the public as a business model.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Fair. But that would, at least in the US, require a complete overhaul of the justice system. As it is, the justice belongs to those who can spend more on lawyers, so few individuals are willing to accept a realistic risk of having their lives forever ruined on the off chance they'll win against a corporation that can easily outspend them in court.
        6y ago