5 ms·

Either one is inevitable. The wealth of data that can be collected about a person through their phone is too valuable. Pick your poison. Massive government surv

Either one is inevitable. The wealth of data that can be collected about a person through their phone is too valuable. Pick your poison. Massive government surveillance or massive corporate surveillance. Or both, as is currently the case. This won't change. That ship has sailed and isn't docking ever again.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Either one is inevitable. The wealth of data that can be collected about a person through their phone is too valuable. The wealth and power attainable through child labour or slavery or unethical medical experimentation is also quite vast. Your argument is, essentially, the state is powerless to restrict markets. That we exist in a laissez faire world, where anything economically possible will be done. I’ll give it this: I haven’t seen this pitch before. Would love to see you and a free market advocate debate.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  Child labour and slavery remain commonplace in many poor countries. In industrialized countries, a high level of labour productivity, technology, and automation makes it impractical or too expensive to hire a slave or a child. Put another way, advanced economies are advanced enough that there is little useful work that could be performed by a child or a slave, if child labour or slavery were still legal. Data collection, on the other hand, can only take place in countries with a high level of Internet penetration and a developed digital infrastructure.
  - AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
    > a high level of labour productivity, technology, and automation makes it impractical or too expensive to hire a slave or a child > advanced economies are advanced enough that there is little useful work that could be performed by a child or a slave I am uncertain about this idea that abhorrent labor practices vanish under the light of an industrialized workforce. There are practical issues to which we could point; China is a rapidly industrializing country, yet remains notorious for continuing to employ slave & child labor. Advancements in the general productivity of China's workforce have not led to a proportional reduction in this kind of labor practice. China had yet another one of its main goods added to the DoL's list of slave/child labor goods just days ago. [0] (Yes, this list suspiciously fails to report on any of the US's goods but that's an issue for another controversial HN reply.) Then there's the issue of advancing economies employing increasingly-"advanced" child labor protections, which corporations are routinely found to violate. [1] As countries improve their labor conditions and solidify regulatory environments within which corporations can work, firms are frequently found to do everything they can to skirt those laws. More generally, I'd point to the fact that "advanced" economies outsource the production of goods to poorer nations that still allow, tolerate, or willfully employ (that last one being exceedingly rare today) child labor. This sort of outsourcing of ethical responsibility is a common trait that can be observed in just about all civilizations at every level of technological and industrial progress. I think this is more an issue of widespread cultural values. Note that the DoL's list [2] has many examples of goods produced by China, but none produced by neighboring Tibet. Turkey is on the list for its production of several foods as well as garments, despite being a modern, industrialized nation. Italy and Greece are similarly industrialized, and in similar parts of the world, yet they are not on the list at all, despite their production of many goods that are typically produced by forced/child labor. Some places make an effort to negate forced/child labor in their markets, others do not. The blanket notion, though, that advanced economies are rid of these problems due to the lack of incentives to engage in them in the first place, to me seems quite incorrect. [0] https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/us-ramping-up-pressure-on-china-s-use-of-forced-labor-in-distant-water-fishing https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainabilit... [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/chipotle-to-pay-1-4m-fine-to-settle-mass-child-labor-violations https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/chipotle-to-pay-1-4m-fin... [2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods-print https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-o...
- equality_1138 6y ago
  > Your argument is, essentially, the state is powerless to restrict markets. This either/or attitude about free markets and regulation is upsetting. Someone makes a point about a specific technology and the effects of its high value to both public and private sector, and the common reaction is to generalize for the whole history of economic theory around markets. If people trust the state in its ability to regulate a given market, then great. I think it's overly optimistic in this case however.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > That we exist in a (...) world, where anything economically possible will be done. I’ll give it this: I haven’t seen this pitch before. Huh. And I actually use it as a heuristic in observing the world. That's exactly why I wasn't surprised by Snowden revelations. And I would think this realization would be somewhat obvious by now. Anything that is within technological possibility and that can be profited off will eventually be attempted by someone. Child labor, slavery and unethical medical experimentation aren't exceptions - they still happen, usually where someone can make money from practicing it. We don't live in a laissez-faire world per se - regulations can make some things unprofitable and thus prevent them from happening. But regulations aren't immutable, and can be altered... with enough money. I increasingly believe that trying to treat governance and market economy as completely different is a category error.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> Either one is inevitable. The wealth of data that can be collected about a person through their phone is too valuable. The wealth and power attainable through child labour or slavery or unethical medical experimentation is also quite vast. Your argument is, essentially, the state is powerless to restrict markets. That we exist in a laissez faire world, where anything economically possible will be done. I’ll give it this: I haven’t seen this pitch before. Would love to see you and a free market advocate debate.

HenryKissinger 6y ago
Child labour and slavery remain commonplace in many poor countries. In industrialized countries, a high level of labour productivity, technology, and automation makes it impractical or too expensive to hire a slave or a child. Put another way, advanced economies are advanced enough that there is little useful work that could be performed by a child or a slave, if child labour or slavery were still legal. Data collection, on the other hand, can only take place in countries with a high level of Internet penetration and a developed digital infrastructure.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  > a high level of labour productivity, technology, and automation makes it impractical or too expensive to hire a slave or a child > advanced economies are advanced enough that there is little useful work that could be performed by a child or a slave I am uncertain about this idea that abhorrent labor practices vanish under the light of an industrialized workforce. There are practical issues to which we could point; China is a rapidly industrializing country, yet remains notorious for continuing to employ slave & child labor. Advancements in the general productivity of China's workforce have not led to a proportional reduction in this kind of labor practice. China had yet another one of its main goods added to the DoL's list of slave/child labor goods just days ago. [0] (Yes, this list suspiciously fails to report on any of the US's goods but that's an issue for another controversial HN reply.) Then there's the issue of advancing economies employing increasingly-"advanced" child labor protections, which corporations are routinely found to violate. [1] As countries improve their labor conditions and solidify regulatory environments within which corporations can work, firms are frequently found to do everything they can to skirt those laws. More generally, I'd point to the fact that "advanced" economies outsource the production of goods to poorer nations that still allow, tolerate, or willfully employ (that last one being exceedingly rare today) child labor. This sort of outsourcing of ethical responsibility is a common trait that can be observed in just about all civilizations at every level of technological and industrial progress. I think this is more an issue of widespread cultural values. Note that the DoL's list [2] has many examples of goods produced by China, but none produced by neighboring Tibet. Turkey is on the list for its production of several foods as well as garments, despite being a modern, industrialized nation. Italy and Greece are similarly industrialized, and in similar parts of the world, yet they are not on the list at all, despite their production of many goods that are typically produced by forced/child labor. Some places make an effort to negate forced/child labor in their markets, others do not. The blanket notion, though, that advanced economies are rid of these problems due to the lack of incentives to engage in them in the first place, to me seems quite incorrect. [0] https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/us-ramping-up-pressure-on-china-s-use-of-forced-labor-in-distant-water-fishing https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainabilit... [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/chipotle-to-pay-1-4m-fine-to-settle-mass-child-labor-violations https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/chipotle-to-pay-1-4m-fin... [2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods-print https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-o...
equality_1138 6y ago
> Your argument is, essentially, the state is powerless to restrict markets. This either/or attitude about free markets and regulation is upsetting. Someone makes a point about a specific technology and the effects of its high value to both public and private sector, and the common reaction is to generalize for the whole history of economic theory around markets. If people trust the state in its ability to regulate a given market, then great. I think it's overly optimistic in this case however.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> That we exist in a (...) world, where anything economically possible will be done. I’ll give it this: I haven’t seen this pitch before. Huh. And I actually use it as a heuristic in observing the world. That's exactly why I wasn't surprised by Snowden revelations. And I would think this realization would be somewhat obvious by now. Anything that is within technological possibility and that can be profited off will eventually be attempted by someone. Child labor, slavery and unethical medical experimentation aren't exceptions - they still happen, usually where someone can make money from practicing it. We don't live in a laissez-faire world per se - regulations can make some things unprofitable and thus prevent them from happening. But regulations aren't immutable, and can be altered... with enough money. I increasingly believe that trying to treat governance and market economy as completely different is a category error.