6 ms·

Fascinating analogy. Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments (and the span of control they have over people’s lives) I do not be

Fascinating analogy. Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments (and the span of control they have over people’s lives) I do not believe this analogy can be used for any useful inference. It’s almost as if this example with app stores is an incredibly specific, narrow example, and government control in this way is incredibly broad in impact (I.e. life or death, end of the actual world etc). Did any of that make any sense?

intortus 6y ago
I think you are saying that they are right, but also very, very wrong?
vmception 6y ago
> Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments I disagree with that line. I feel like people are desperate for there to be a difference based on some 9th grade civics class, or because an animated anthropomorphic piece of paper sang to them about bills in elementary school. The British East India company had the power to jail and kill, for centuries. The Head of the Executive Branch is the CEO of government agencies. Anything is possible.
- baddox 6y ago
  The British East India company was a government actor. It’s silly to consider them otherwise simply because it was technically a “joint-stock company.” It was part of the government. Wikipedia even notes: > Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"
  - nindalf 6y ago
    > It was part of the government. It was not. It did not answer to Parliament, only to its shareholders. It has the best of both worlds though, because many powerful MPs were shareholders. So they got govt protection without govt oversight.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      Well ... why do you think the British Navy was the biggest in the world? To protect trade.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      You're definitely focusing on the wrong bit.
- clomond 6y ago
  Very interesting comment. The statement was written with the lens of very different goals (corporations maximize profit within the context of selling goods and services where governments - usually, serve the people sufficiently to maintain control & power over its people by being “great leaders”). Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. Corporations also rarely have militaries nor are the final backstop for when disagreements occur. Your example is interesting because it compares probably the most government like corporation to ever exist (the Dutch East India Company) and the most “nurfed” head of state by most metrics to ever exist (I.e. the least powerful relative to power of the nation - the American President, while being the head of the largest economically and most powerful country, role by role is quite restricted and limited in scope and control by design of the founding fathers).
  - asgard1024 6y ago
    > Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. And yet in the U.S., your health care and pension is often tied to your employment at a corporation. For some people, for example those on work visa, having employment in a particular corporation is tied to living in the same country. Vice versa, a democratic government has less control over your life than you might think. And if we look at things like free speech - I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      > I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult. What do you mean by this? Google is a smoking pile of dumpster fires filled with turds. Should I now expect Google agents to come to my house and disappear my family and I?
      - asgard1024 6y ago
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify their own beliefs. If it has the power to jail and kill, that'll make it much more like a government than you like to admit.
  - vmception 6y ago
    so therefore any corporation that has the power to jail and kill is no longer a corporation and cannot pollute the distinction? paradoxical. US slave trading firms were government agencies folks. I'm sure we can find some modern example if we dig deep enough.
- glogla 6y ago
  There are two important differences: 1) Head of Executive branch is limited by law (constitution, etc). CEO is not limited 2) The Raison d'être of government, at least de iure, is to do good for its citizens, while the raison d'être of corporation is to make money. That makes them very different - not a lot of people would object to removal of nonproductive employees or customers, but many would (I hope!) object removal (through whatever means) of "nonproductive" citizens.
fauigerzigerk 6y ago
I would normally agree with you and in fact I do still agree, but the lines are becoming uncomfortably blurred. The enormous power that these two global corporations - Apple and Google - have over the livelihoods of so many developers and content producers is unprecedented. Each of them can wipe out the value of your professional skills over night. For many people these corporations are without alternative. It's no longer a voluntary business relationship. In Apple's case, the side-loading ban interacts with authoritarian government in a way that clearly threatens human rights. But at least on that particular issue consumers still have a choice.
willvarfar 6y ago
It’s harder to draw a government corporate distinction while replying to a comment specifically mentioning China and the US? Are the big Chinese tech companies independent of their government? And are the US companies exploring bidding for tiktok etc doing so because the US government is coercing them?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

intortus 6y ago

I think you are saying that they are right, but also very, very wrong?

vmception 6y ago

> Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments I disagree with that line. I feel like people are desperate for there to be a difference based on some 9th grade civics class, or because an animated anthropomorphic piece of paper sang to them about bills in elementary school. The British East India company had the power to jail and kill, for centuries. The Head of the Executive Branch is the CEO of government agencies. Anything is possible.

baddox 6y ago
The British East India company was a government actor. It’s silly to consider them otherwise simply because it was technically a “joint-stock company.” It was part of the government. Wikipedia even notes: > Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"
- nindalf 6y ago
  > It was part of the government. It was not. It did not answer to Parliament, only to its shareholders. It has the best of both worlds though, because many powerful MPs were shareholders. So they got govt protection without govt oversight.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    Well ... why do you think the British Navy was the biggest in the world? To protect trade.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    You're definitely focusing on the wrong bit.
clomond 6y ago
Very interesting comment. The statement was written with the lens of very different goals (corporations maximize profit within the context of selling goods and services where governments - usually, serve the people sufficiently to maintain control & power over its people by being “great leaders”). Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. Corporations also rarely have militaries nor are the final backstop for when disagreements occur. Your example is interesting because it compares probably the most government like corporation to ever exist (the Dutch East India Company) and the most “nurfed” head of state by most metrics to ever exist (I.e. the least powerful relative to power of the nation - the American President, while being the head of the largest economically and most powerful country, role by role is quite restricted and limited in scope and control by design of the founding fathers).
- asgard1024 6y ago
  > Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. And yet in the U.S., your health care and pension is often tied to your employment at a corporation. For some people, for example those on work visa, having employment in a particular corporation is tied to living in the same country. Vice versa, a democratic government has less control over your life than you might think. And if we look at things like free speech - I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    > I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult. What do you mean by this? Google is a smoking pile of dumpster fires filled with turds. Should I now expect Google agents to come to my house and disappear my family and I?
    - asgard1024 6y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify their own beliefs. If it has the power to jail and kill, that'll make it much more like a government than you like to admit.
- vmception 6y ago
  so therefore any corporation that has the power to jail and kill is no longer a corporation and cannot pollute the distinction? paradoxical. US slave trading firms were government agencies folks. I'm sure we can find some modern example if we dig deep enough.
glogla 6y ago
There are two important differences: 1) Head of Executive branch is limited by law (constitution, etc). CEO is not limited 2) The Raison d'être of government, at least de iure, is to do good for its citizens, while the raison d'être of corporation is to make money. That makes them very different - not a lot of people would object to removal of nonproductive employees or customers, but many would (I hope!) object removal (through whatever means) of "nonproductive" citizens.

fauigerzigerk 6y ago

I would normally agree with you and in fact I do still agree, but the lines are becoming uncomfortably blurred. The enormous power that these two global corporations - Apple and Google - have over the livelihoods of so many developers and content producers is unprecedented. Each of them can wipe out the value of your professional skills over night. For many people these corporations are without alternative. It's no longer a voluntary business relationship. In Apple's case, the side-loading ban interacts with authoritarian government in a way that clearly threatens human rights. But at least on that particular issue consumers still have a choice.

willvarfar 6y ago

It’s harder to draw a government corporate distinction while replying to a comment specifically mentioning China and the US? Are the big Chinese tech companies independent of their government? And are the US companies exploring bidding for tiktok etc doing so because the US government is coercing them?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]