3 ms·
Your question is obviously irrelevant. Whether or not they have flagrantly abused the power is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not they could, how e
by tibyat 6y ago
Your question is obviously irrelevant. Whether or not they have flagrantly abused the power is irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether or not they could, how easy it would be to do so, how damaging it could be, and what protections we would have once they have done so. This is the threat presented by internet monopolies and their fetish for violating our privacy.
Also consider that no company has managed to stay on top indefinitely. Once their growth slows, and they become desperate to appease shareholders, what won't they do to make that happen?
Long after fads have changed, supposed benevolent coding wunderkinds have moved on, the troves of data will still be there, ripe for the MBA's, the lawyers, the mitt romney's, god knows who, to leverage.
The argument "they've been nice about it so far, so why shouldn't we keep doing it?" is a fucking joke.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago"What do all men with power want? More power." "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I feel like we have to re-learn the lessons of history every few decades. These things have never worked out well for us in the past and yet despite thousand of historical examples, in every generation or three, a not-small group of people arises swearing that this time is different. Literally the only way to protect humanity from itself is to prevent the concentration of power and here we are, doing it again.
- RonanTheGrey 6y agoGo ahead and downvote folks, the bug is in your head and now you can't get it out. You know you can't ignore it, as much as you want to.