3 ms·

Not even close. This sort of rhetoric just numbs people to actual abuses when they happen. If you want to see actual symbiotic entities, go look at social medi

• iammisc 5y ago
  Honestly this forced choice (either google is in bed with government or Raytheon et Al are) is just needless politicization. Why don't we just condemn both? I mean... Google is going down the same path as the defense contractors and instead of stopping it from evolving into something like them, you're essentially arguing to look the other way
• beebeepka 5y ago
  What's the difference? Sam must have invested in Google before 2005. At least that was the time it became somewhat apparent
• mindslight 5y ago
  Without backing up your assertion, we're just talking past one another. Google the entity relies upon USG's system of laws for what it can and cannot do. Without Google (et al), USG would have a much harder time gathering information on citizens. That's symbiosis. There is real downside to Google if it decided to go against USG's de facto interests, even if it technically has the de jure ability to do so. What is the upside? The only large company that has made an attempt to rebuke the general desires of USG is Apple, which has since backpedaled with its on device spyware. Could this relationship be reformed through the little bit of leverage that US citizens have over USG? Perhaps. If you've got another concrete proposal aimed at doing do, then bring it up. But unless we're discussing a specific proposal, it's prudent for individual citizens to model the two as cooperating attackers rather than getting distracted with hopeful dichotomies such as "government" vs "private company".
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Google the entity relies upon USG's system of laws for what it can and cannot do You've defined symbiosis in a way that incorporates every person, company--and hell protected species--that touches American law. That makes the term useless for purposes of discussion.
    • mindslight 5y ago
      Eh, kind of. I agree I could have done a better job. I was trying to quickly summarize this distinction - A corporation literally cannot exist without a government charter. Google is able to collect all this surveillance data with impunity due to the state. Google is able to wash its hands of responsibility for the results of its actions due to the state. Google is able to force its workers to be loyal (eg not embezzle for themselves or competitors) due to the state. Google wouldn't have such outsized financial resources without the state printing reams of fiat money. Heading off the common retort that a private person can do whatever a corporation can do - the relevant issue is scale. It's simply impractical for an individual or a simple group of individuals to scale up to the level of a large corporation. And yes, this definition does end up catching any corporation as an intrinsic organ of the state. While jarring (because in the US power flows both ways), this is still a fundamental truth. For example if you attempt to set up an LLC or corporation that operates at odds with government policy (eg selling drugs), you'll find out how quickly a corporate veil will be discarded. Actions that are at odds with government policy are defined criminally, and thus all corporate activity is inherently government chartered. Of course all of this is only useful as a lemma to reach another conclusion. But that's what I was doing - why would Google ever choose to rock the boat? It's not impossible (cf Apple), it's just that there would need to be some explicit incentive for Google beyond mere citizens' hope.
• passivate 5y ago
  "We're way better than China" is not really a great thing in this context. It is also a problem that the bar has been set too low by other countries.