6 ms·

I hope the book goes in detail _how_ we are to take back control of our data. One person deleting their Facebook and having good privacy hygiene on the web won'

I hope the book goes in detail _how_ we are to take back control of our data. One person deleting their Facebook and having good privacy hygiene on the web won't make a dent. Telling others to do the same is futile as well. It's long past due for society to fear Big Corp instead of Big Government, as now we'll need the latter to tame the former.

meekrohprocess 6y ago
Shaming people who use mass-scale social media could help. Sort of like smoking: people used to do it because it was cool, even after the enormous health problems were well-understood. And it didn't stop being cool until enough people started to treat it like a gross and dirty habit.
- mapme 6y ago
  Theoretically this is exactly the justification political mobs on twitter use to go after bad behavior that to them feels morally wrong. I think it’s one of the only ways to change society but it should be done with a light touch. With smoking I think people thought “it’s gross” not that you are a gross and morally repugnant person. So demonizing the act and not the person is important. Granted if people are not using social media the mobs will be smaller, but even if everyone is in communities the size of HN, it’s still possible to form “mob sentiment”
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - meekrohprocess 6y ago
    Right, exactly. The habit is gross, not the person. "Social-media-using" should be treated like an adjective that modifies the individual, not a noun that defines them. It's a shame that nuance seems like the first thing to go out the window when we use social media sites like this, but maybe someday we'll be able to do better.
- decasteve 6y ago
  > Shaming people who use mass-scale social media could help. Start by shaming government officials and organizations, any official government channels, even schools and school boards, that require tools provided by surveillance capitalists. If a ToS and privacy policy to a third party is required, then your right to freedom of association is infringed upon. If governments make official releases only to walled gardens, then those who choose not to associate are cut-off from important information in the political process. Giving up your equal rights unless you give in to surveillance capitalism is a threat to democracy. Start there.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    > that require tools provided by surveillance capitalists So no state made tools?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
amelius 6y ago
Just ban advertising. It will probably be the best thing that ever happened to the planet (reducing overconsumption) and her inhabitants. We will find another way to fund the internet. I have no doubt about that.
- rapind 6y ago
  This. Advertising is the root cause (perhaps shared with education and abstraction) of this problem and a ton of tie in problems. Obviously there are good reasons to have advertising, but we’re so far afield at this point, big changes are required. Regulate it into the ground, and watch societies that don’t also do so, turn into slave nations.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- seniorivn 6y ago
  will we find another way to find new customers, especially for new businesses?
  - glial 6y ago
    There is strong incentive to do so, so I would wager a yes.
  - meowster 6y ago
    There already is one: referrals
    - Mirioron 6y ago
      That's also advertising.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    How did people find businesses and tradespeople back in the day? Either word of mouth or through the phone book. Word of mouth is good because it encourages businesses to provide the best service & value as that will directly affect whether they get referrals or not. Phone book is also good because although it's similar to advertising, it's advertising that benefits both sides. The customer is in the market for a service and looks at ads from businesses that are looking for customers, unlike now where ads are pushed at you even when you don't actually need anything and distract you from whatever task you were doing. There's no reason we can't have a modern version of the "phone book" where businesses can publish ads for a nominal fee (to pay for a background check to ensure they're legitimate) and prospective customers can then search through it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
umvi 6y ago
> It's long past due for society to fear Big Corp instead of Big Government You should fear both. Big Anything will eventually abuse their position of power after leadership changes hands enough times. And who is going to help you tame Big Government when they hold all the keys?
- brightstep 6y ago
  At least government is somewhat, if minimally, accountable to people living in a democracy. Corporations are tyrannies, wholly unresponsive to the will of the people.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    Corporations act under governments. It's been this way for a while now. Corporations can't do business without the government as the government can always pass a law to stop the corporation's business. It doesn't work the other way around. A corporation can't stop the government.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      And that's the entire point of this subthread: people need to get their government to rein in the big corps. Yes, they still need to be wary of their governments and vote responsibly, but they need to be doubly wary of these corporations, and not be afraid to use government to control them. I see a lot of rhetoric around "free markets" and "not interfering with enterprise" -- usually pushed by corporations themselves. People need to reject that thinking and understand that the corporations don't have their best interests at heart when they say these things.
      - Mirioron 6y ago
        You still have to be more wary of the government. The government has almost all of the power. Corporations only have power if people choose to engage with them or if the government forces you to engage with them (lets them engage with you - eg pollution). The reason enterprises don't want the government to interfere is that often the government is used maliciously to deal with competing enterprises. It's still the government doing it though, whether a corporation influences the politicians or not. And if this is on the table then corporations will fight over getting politicians on their side rather than improving their product. After all, if you can outlaw your competition then that's a better investment than marginally outperforming your competitors with a slightly better product.
seniorivn 6y ago
The only likely outcome for Big Government to tame Big corps is a full blown anti-utopian autocracy. Do u really think it will solve the problem of mass surveillance and etc?
- charlesu 6y ago
  Is that the case? I don’t remember Roosevelt ushering us into full blown anti-utopian autocracy with his Square Deal.

meekrohprocess 6y ago

Shaming people who use mass-scale social media could help. Sort of like smoking: people used to do it because it was cool, even after the enormous health problems were well-understood. And it didn't stop being cool until enough people started to treat it like a gross and dirty habit.

mapme 6y ago
Theoretically this is exactly the justification political mobs on twitter use to go after bad behavior that to them feels morally wrong. I think it’s one of the only ways to change society but it should be done with a light touch. With smoking I think people thought “it’s gross” not that you are a gross and morally repugnant person. So demonizing the act and not the person is important. Granted if people are not using social media the mobs will be smaller, but even if everyone is in communities the size of HN, it’s still possible to form “mob sentiment”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- meekrohprocess 6y ago
  Right, exactly. The habit is gross, not the person. "Social-media-using" should be treated like an adjective that modifies the individual, not a noun that defines them. It's a shame that nuance seems like the first thing to go out the window when we use social media sites like this, but maybe someday we'll be able to do better.
decasteve 6y ago
> Shaming people who use mass-scale social media could help. Start by shaming government officials and organizations, any official government channels, even schools and school boards, that require tools provided by surveillance capitalists. If a ToS and privacy policy to a third party is required, then your right to freedom of association is infringed upon. If governments make official releases only to walled gardens, then those who choose not to associate are cut-off from important information in the political process. Giving up your equal rights unless you give in to surveillance capitalism is a threat to democracy. Start there.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  > that require tools provided by surveillance capitalists So no state made tools?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

amelius 6y ago

Just ban advertising. It will probably be the best thing that ever happened to the planet (reducing overconsumption) and her inhabitants. We will find another way to fund the internet. I have no doubt about that.

rapind 6y ago
This. Advertising is the root cause (perhaps shared with education and abstraction) of this problem and a ton of tie in problems. Obviously there are good reasons to have advertising, but we’re so far afield at this point, big changes are required. Regulate it into the ground, and watch societies that don’t also do so, turn into slave nations.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
seniorivn 6y ago
will we find another way to find new customers, especially for new businesses?
- glial 6y ago
  There is strong incentive to do so, so I would wager a yes.
- meowster 6y ago
  There already is one: referrals
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    That's also advertising.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  How did people find businesses and tradespeople back in the day? Either word of mouth or through the phone book. Word of mouth is good because it encourages businesses to provide the best service & value as that will directly affect whether they get referrals or not. Phone book is also good because although it's similar to advertising, it's advertising that benefits both sides. The customer is in the market for a service and looks at ads from businesses that are looking for customers, unlike now where ads are pushed at you even when you don't actually need anything and distract you from whatever task you were doing. There's no reason we can't have a modern version of the "phone book" where businesses can publish ads for a nominal fee (to pay for a background check to ensure they're legitimate) and prospective customers can then search through it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

umvi 6y ago

> It's long past due for society to fear Big Corp instead of Big Government You should fear both. Big Anything will eventually abuse their position of power after leadership changes hands enough times. And who is going to help you tame Big Government when they hold all the keys?

brightstep 6y ago
At least government is somewhat, if minimally, accountable to people living in a democracy. Corporations are tyrannies, wholly unresponsive to the will of the people.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  Corporations act under governments. It's been this way for a while now. Corporations can't do business without the government as the government can always pass a law to stop the corporation's business. It doesn't work the other way around. A corporation can't stop the government.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    And that's the entire point of this subthread: people need to get their government to rein in the big corps. Yes, they still need to be wary of their governments and vote responsibly, but they need to be doubly wary of these corporations, and not be afraid to use government to control them. I see a lot of rhetoric around "free markets" and "not interfering with enterprise" -- usually pushed by corporations themselves. People need to reject that thinking and understand that the corporations don't have their best interests at heart when they say these things.
    - Mirioron 6y ago
      You still have to be more wary of the government. The government has almost all of the power. Corporations only have power if people choose to engage with them or if the government forces you to engage with them (lets them engage with you - eg pollution). The reason enterprises don't want the government to interfere is that often the government is used maliciously to deal with competing enterprises. It's still the government doing it though, whether a corporation influences the politicians or not. And if this is on the table then corporations will fight over getting politicians on their side rather than improving their product. After all, if you can outlaw your competition then that's a better investment than marginally outperforming your competitors with a slightly better product.

seniorivn 6y ago

The only likely outcome for Big Government to tame Big corps is a full blown anti-utopian autocracy. Do u really think it will solve the problem of mass surveillance and etc?

charlesu 6y ago
Is that the case? I don’t remember Roosevelt ushering us into full blown anti-utopian autocracy with his Square Deal.