5 ms·

Government is deeply involved in tech and tech is deeply involved in government. There's major mutual touchpoints just about everywhere Cherry picking an outli

Government is deeply involved in tech and tech is deeply involved in government. There's major mutual touchpoints just about everywhere Cherry picking an outlier, then attributing one side of the relationship as completely as fault and sarcastically implying it's generally representative isn't an honest depiction of reality. I've seen lip service to this clear misrepresentation of reality my whole life. I don't let it slide anymore. We can do better.

scarface74 6y ago
The difference is that giving the government more power is inherently dangerous. I can refuse to use a specific tech company’s product a lot easier than I can refuse to be under a government. A corporation doesn’t have the power of the state to threaten to take away property or liberty.
- strbean 6y ago
  > A corporation doesn’t have the power of the state to threaten to take away property or liberty. Questionable, and to the extent that this is true, it is because of power given to governments to ensure those rights.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    You mean the power given to unelected departments like the FTC, FDA, etc that actually create regulations or the unelected judges with lifetime appointments or the unelected officials in the Department of Justice?
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      Those obviously need to be fixed. Finding egregious oversights in the structure of our public office doesn't immediately invalidate it because we have tangible, actionable mechanisms for fixing it. Corporations on the other hand are effectively vestigial 21st century monarchies, with all the cost and benefits that comes with that. I've ran a few small ones and believe in private industry. I'm not anti corporation, but let's call a spade a spade here. Believing in bullshit never helps you in a competitive marketplace, don't do it.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        You mean fix one entire branch of the US government - the judicial branch. Or do you mean the Senate that has two senators regardless of population where someone in the Midwest has far more voting power than someone in a more populous state? Or do you mean gerrymandering? It’s not libertarianism. It’s seeing the history of biased enforcement when it comes to the “War on Drugs” among other things but even with tech, we see the government would love to get access to data and in the case of the current administration “shut down Twitter”. If the government had more control over the tech industry, who do you think they would go after?
        kristopolous 6y ago
        The government could trivially shut down the internet. They could easily raid the ICANN and IANA offices in playa vista and shut down global DNS in about an hour if they wanted. It's just a single floor, you could probably do it with 2 police officers. The chains that bind them from doing so are those of public accountability. A diligent public strangles the powers of a revanchist government. Again I agree with you there are regrettable policies that should be addressed. Governance offers us that mechanism. That's why it's preferable as an institution in deciding public policy. I'd rather have our imperfect government with their awful War on Drugs running the show than say Beyer, who marketed heroin to kids for mild ailments, or Purdue pharma which peddled opioids, you know, as late as last year, or the huxster Elizabeth Holmes or the price gouging Martin Shkreli or RJ Reynolds or any other profit seeking unaccountable entity. Replacing the FDA with say a board of Shkreli, Holmes and Purdue? Yeah, I'm sure that'd go just great.
        scarface74 6y ago
        And there you have it. When drugs were affecting the inner city it was all about “lack of morality” and being “tough on crime”. But when it started affecting “rural America” it was “let’s blame the drug companies” and “treat it like a disease”. I doubt people in the inner city or the people who “fit the description” wouldn’t feel the same way about the “War on Drugs”.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Of course they do! Private mercenaries, prisons, banks, repo companies, landlords, insurance providers, all kinds... of course they do. Corporations were initially an arm of the state to do state functions. They still do that today. What corporations don't have is any obligation to cede to the public demand or be held accountable for their actions. There's no democratic control, no way they can be fired by the voter nor do they have any responsibility of transparency. Voting systems, red light cameras, municipal water, nearly every aspect is controlled by private corporations shirking responsibility oftentimes for decades. Polluting a town's water supply and walking away pretending they didn't - there's even many well known movies about things like this with academy awards. Often the criminals get away with it having hid under the legal fiction of the corporation. If a secretive unaccountable private corporation determining the outcome of an election and claiming the audit trail is a trade secret doesn't ruffle your libertarian feathers then there's something seriously wrong. What you claimed is yet another silly thing I've been hearing my whole life. It's totally wrong. Any inspection would immediately reveal this
  - scarface74 6y ago
    What corporations don't have is any obligation to cede to the public demand or be held accountable for their actions. There's no democratic control, no way they can be fired by the voter nor do they have any responsibility of •transparency. How well has that whole accountability thing worked out for the police department and the American military? The justice system? There's no democratic control, no way they can be fired by the voter nor do they have any responsibility of transparency. Nor can judges with lifetime appointments. Voting systems, Where conservative states consistently disenfranchise minority voters by closing polling places, passing voter id laws but then make it harder for minorities to get an ID and they count gun registrations as valid Id but not college IDs... Polluting a town's water supply and walking away pretending they didn't See the government run water supply in Flint Michigan.
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      Absolutely! Humans can be real bastards and governments aren't magical solutions just as corporations aren't magically evil. The question is about who can be held more accountable, who can be more feasibly removed from power and what kind of institution can be more promptly remedied. We as moral actors could potentially change the laws of governance probably far easier than we could form a corporation to defeat ExxonMobil in the marketplace. Both should be easier, but that's another discussion. Both governance and private capital are imperfect and both deserve criticism. Being a fan of either is a mistake.
- lmkg 6y ago
  > * I can refuse to use a specific tech company's product* This is less true than you might realize. Consider that if a friend of yours is on Facebook, they might upload photos of you and tag your name, allowing Facebook to build a profile of you regardless of whether you use Facebook or not. Consider that credit rating agencies buy your loan history in order to rate you as a customer, regardless of whether you check your credit history with them or not. Consider that Google buys your credit card purchase history to build a profile of you. Consider that Google takes pictures of your house regardless of whether you search for it on Maps. Consider that GM and Ford collect and sell your location data from your vehicle. Note that vehicles that don't do this are getting more difficult to obtain because the price of vehicles is becoming increasingly subsidized by surveillance. Technology is ubiquitous. Not all technology is a product sold to consumers, and you don't always have a say in how it's used. GDPR covers all of the above situations. Its effect on websites is peanuts. > A corporation doesn’t have the power of the state to threaten to take away property or liberty. Automated systems are currently part of the decision-making process in hiring, firing, choosing to loan, choosing to rent, policing, and determining prison sentences. A corporation that offers "fraud detection" services has a surprising amount of power over your liberty and property.
  - narag 6y ago
    ...allowing Facebook to build a profile of you regardless of whether you use Facebook or not. Why isn't there a law to prevent this while there's a law that accomplishes nothing except guarrantied annoyances? Is not the government that makes laws?
    - happymellon 6y ago
      There is, it's called the General Data Protection Regulations. Its purpose is to protect consumers from companies that surveil and track without your knowledge and permission. You should read up on it as cookies are just a tiny paragraph.
      - narag 6y ago
        My point is that it's the government that makes and enforces laws. Government is responsible for both its own misconduct and companies'.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  Seems a bit simplistic. I'm always surprised at how really smart people revert to tribalist sound bites when it comes to politics. Power is derived from the ability to successfully enforce it. Doesn't matter who has the power.

scarface74 6y ago

The difference is that giving the government more power is inherently dangerous. I can refuse to use a specific tech company’s product a lot easier than I can refuse to be under a government. A corporation doesn’t have the power of the state to threaten to take away property or liberty.

strbean 6y ago
> A corporation doesn’t have the power of the state to threaten to take away property or liberty. Questionable, and to the extent that this is true, it is because of power given to governments to ensure those rights.
- scarface74 6y ago
  You mean the power given to unelected departments like the FTC, FDA, etc that actually create regulations or the unelected judges with lifetime appointments or the unelected officials in the Department of Justice?
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Those obviously need to be fixed. Finding egregious oversights in the structure of our public office doesn't immediately invalidate it because we have tangible, actionable mechanisms for fixing it. Corporations on the other hand are effectively vestigial 21st century monarchies, with all the cost and benefits that comes with that. I've ran a few small ones and believe in private industry. I'm not anti corporation, but let's call a spade a spade here. Believing in bullshit never helps you in a competitive marketplace, don't do it.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      You mean fix one entire branch of the US government - the judicial branch. Or do you mean the Senate that has two senators regardless of population where someone in the Midwest has far more voting power than someone in a more populous state? Or do you mean gerrymandering? It’s not libertarianism. It’s seeing the history of biased enforcement when it comes to the “War on Drugs” among other things but even with tech, we see the government would love to get access to data and in the case of the current administration “shut down Twitter”. If the government had more control over the tech industry, who do you think they would go after?
      - kristopolous 6y ago
        The government could trivially shut down the internet. They could easily raid the ICANN and IANA offices in playa vista and shut down global DNS in about an hour if they wanted. It's just a single floor, you could probably do it with 2 police officers. The chains that bind them from doing so are those of public accountability. A diligent public strangles the powers of a revanchist government. Again I agree with you there are regrettable policies that should be addressed. Governance offers us that mechanism. That's why it's preferable as an institution in deciding public policy. I'd rather have our imperfect government with their awful War on Drugs running the show than say Beyer, who marketed heroin to kids for mild ailments, or Purdue pharma which peddled opioids, you know, as late as last year, or the huxster Elizabeth Holmes or the price gouging Martin Shkreli or RJ Reynolds or any other profit seeking unaccountable entity. Replacing the FDA with say a board of Shkreli, Holmes and Purdue? Yeah, I'm sure that'd go just great.
        scarface74 6y ago
        And there you have it. When drugs were affecting the inner city it was all about “lack of morality” and being “tough on crime”. But when it started affecting “rural America” it was “let’s blame the drug companies” and “treat it like a disease”. I doubt people in the inner city or the people who “fit the description” wouldn’t feel the same way about the “War on Drugs”.
kristopolous 6y ago
Of course they do! Private mercenaries, prisons, banks, repo companies, landlords, insurance providers, all kinds... of course they do. Corporations were initially an arm of the state to do state functions. They still do that today. What corporations don't have is any obligation to cede to the public demand or be held accountable for their actions. There's no democratic control, no way they can be fired by the voter nor do they have any responsibility of transparency. Voting systems, red light cameras, municipal water, nearly every aspect is controlled by private corporations shirking responsibility oftentimes for decades. Polluting a town's water supply and walking away pretending they didn't - there's even many well known movies about things like this with academy awards. Often the criminals get away with it having hid under the legal fiction of the corporation. If a secretive unaccountable private corporation determining the outcome of an election and claiming the audit trail is a trade secret doesn't ruffle your libertarian feathers then there's something seriously wrong. What you claimed is yet another silly thing I've been hearing my whole life. It's totally wrong. Any inspection would immediately reveal this
- scarface74 6y ago
  What corporations don't have is any obligation to cede to the public demand or be held accountable for their actions. There's no democratic control, no way they can be fired by the voter nor do they have any responsibility of •transparency. How well has that whole accountability thing worked out for the police department and the American military? The justice system? There's no democratic control, no way they can be fired by the voter nor do they have any responsibility of transparency. Nor can judges with lifetime appointments. Voting systems, Where conservative states consistently disenfranchise minority voters by closing polling places, passing voter id laws but then make it harder for minorities to get an ID and they count gun registrations as valid Id but not college IDs... Polluting a town's water supply and walking away pretending they didn't See the government run water supply in Flint Michigan.
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Absolutely! Humans can be real bastards and governments aren't magical solutions just as corporations aren't magically evil. The question is about who can be held more accountable, who can be more feasibly removed from power and what kind of institution can be more promptly remedied. We as moral actors could potentially change the laws of governance probably far easier than we could form a corporation to defeat ExxonMobil in the marketplace. Both should be easier, but that's another discussion. Both governance and private capital are imperfect and both deserve criticism. Being a fan of either is a mistake.
lmkg 6y ago
> * I can refuse to use a specific tech company's product* This is less true than you might realize. Consider that if a friend of yours is on Facebook, they might upload photos of you and tag your name, allowing Facebook to build a profile of you regardless of whether you use Facebook or not. Consider that credit rating agencies buy your loan history in order to rate you as a customer, regardless of whether you check your credit history with them or not. Consider that Google buys your credit card purchase history to build a profile of you. Consider that Google takes pictures of your house regardless of whether you search for it on Maps. Consider that GM and Ford collect and sell your location data from your vehicle. Note that vehicles that don't do this are getting more difficult to obtain because the price of vehicles is becoming increasingly subsidized by surveillance. Technology is ubiquitous. Not all technology is a product sold to consumers, and you don't always have a say in how it's used. GDPR covers all of the above situations. Its effect on websites is peanuts. > A corporation doesn’t have the power of the state to threaten to take away property or liberty. Automated systems are currently part of the decision-making process in hiring, firing, choosing to loan, choosing to rent, policing, and determining prison sentences. A corporation that offers "fraud detection" services has a surprising amount of power over your liberty and property.
- narag 6y ago
  ...allowing Facebook to build a profile of you regardless of whether you use Facebook or not. Why isn't there a law to prevent this while there's a law that accomplishes nothing except guarrantied annoyances? Is not the government that makes laws?
  - happymellon 6y ago
    There is, it's called the General Data Protection Regulations. Its purpose is to protect consumers from companies that surveil and track without your knowledge and permission. You should read up on it as cookies are just a tiny paragraph.
    - narag 6y ago
      My point is that it's the government that makes and enforces laws. Government is responsible for both its own misconduct and companies'.
rorykoehler 6y ago
Seems a bit simplistic. I'm always surprised at how really smart people revert to tribalist sound bites when it comes to politics. Power is derived from the ability to successfully enforce it. Doesn't matter who has the power.