3 ms·

Companies who track your information, including FAANG get regularly investigated and often fined for violating antitrust laws when they use the data they've gat

by antris 5y ago

Companies who track your information, including FAANG get regularly investigated and often fined for violating antitrust laws when they use the data they've gathered to limit or outright kill competition. I find it disingenuous to ask for evidence of some kind of vague "companies controlling people" when it's obvious that they do it on a larger scale all the time. No, companies do not mind control people on an individual level, but what they do has all the traditional effects of monopolies/oligopolies that are not democratically controlled by the people affected but a handful of rich executives. I'm not even going to go to the "advertising controls people" dialog tree. If it's not obvious why having the power of putting anything you want in front of billions of people is powerful, then I don't think there's a discussion worth having.

quotemstr 5y ago
> it's not obvious why having the power of putting anything you want in front of billions of people is powerful, then I don't think there's a discussion worth having There it is. It's not about tracking per se. It's really about control over advertising and information dissemination more broadly. Motte: preserving user privacy by blocking cookies Bailey: let's tightly control who can put messages in front of the general public
- antris 5y ago
  Is putting barriers into how huge multinational companies can exploit their data farming to cement an unchallengeable position in the market and kill off competition or dissent within the system "tight control into who can put messages in front of the general public"? You are framing this as if I am somehow advocating censorship towards people, yet I am advocating the opposite position. Executives shouldn't be given a such huge powers of data mining and information distribution and ability shut powerless opposition and competition out. This is about preserving equal voice to all people, and preventing juggernauts from squashing it.

by antris 5y ago

quotemstr 5y ago

> it's not obvious why having the power of putting anything you want in front of billions of people is powerful, then I don't think there's a discussion worth having There it is. It's not about tracking per se. It's really about control over advertising and information dissemination more broadly. Motte: preserving user privacy by blocking cookies Bailey: let's tightly control who can put messages in front of the general public

antris 5y ago
Is putting barriers into how huge multinational companies can exploit their data farming to cement an unchallengeable position in the market and kill off competition or dissent within the system "tight control into who can put messages in front of the general public"? You are framing this as if I am somehow advocating censorship towards people, yet I am advocating the opposite position. Executives shouldn't be given a such huge powers of data mining and information distribution and ability shut powerless opposition and competition out. This is about preserving equal voice to all people, and preventing juggernauts from squashing it.