4 ms·

Those governments (and the ones in the US) are at least beholden to voters. Large companies have no accountability, and if they disrupt the democratic process,

by smt88 5y ago

Those governments (and the ones in the US) are at least beholden to voters. Large companies have no accountability, and if they disrupt the democratic process, they have no consequences either. Mark Zuckerberg is the authoritarian ruler of an extremely powerful entity that, in some countries, is more powerful than any local government.

jakear 5y ago
> more powerful than any local government I’ll believe that when I see FB agents smashing down doors to imprison (/kill) activists.
- sergiomattei 5y ago
  They can, indirectly. The side effects of their actions and deep knowledge on individuals can be used for violence or ill will.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    Have they? Does Facebook have political dissidents locked up in prison without representation? Has Google made homosexuality illegal and robbed individuals of legal protections? Does Apple routinely break into the wrong home and shoot people eating ice cream? "They could" isn't a good argument.
- 8note 5y ago
  Why do that when they can push the activist down a depressive spiral into suicide?
  - nickpp 5y ago
    You mean like what they did to Aaron Swartz?
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
They're "beholden to the voters" only in an aggregated sense. Most democracies are representative, so if there's an elite consensus around an issue, it's easy to end up in a situation where a few unpopular policies get enacted or a few popular policies don't. This is ultimately too niche of a topic for many people to be single-issue voters about.
- christophilus 5y ago
  This, and at least in the US, your choice is really between two candidates who are— in practice— virtually identical on most issues. Want to vote for a pro-privacy, anti-war, anti-monopoly, fiscally responsible, forward-thinking candidate? Great. Your candidate will get 0.0001% of the votes. The Republican and Democrat machines don’t give anyone else a chance.
  - clairity 5y ago
    > "Want to vote for a pro-privacy, anti-war, anti-monopoly, fiscally responsible, forward-thinking candidate?" yes! that's totally me in a nutshell. i'm hoping more and more people realize the hegemony that the two-party system represents and votes against it en masse. we need more people standing up against the consolidation of power and wealth in all its forms. that's the only way we return to a healthy and dynamic society.
systemvoltage 5y ago
I'd like to add a few more if I may? Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Elon Musk, Tim Cook.
q1w2 5y ago
The real danger is when they act in unison. ...as we are seeing developing in China. If anything we need to create moats between big tech and gov't. ...and one of those tactics is breaking up tech monopolies/oligopolies.

by smt88 5y ago

jakear 5y ago

> more powerful than any local government I’ll believe that when I see FB agents smashing down doors to imprison (/kill) activists.

sergiomattei 5y ago
They can, indirectly. The side effects of their actions and deep knowledge on individuals can be used for violence or ill will.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  Have they? Does Facebook have political dissidents locked up in prison without representation? Has Google made homosexuality illegal and robbed individuals of legal protections? Does Apple routinely break into the wrong home and shoot people eating ice cream? "They could" isn't a good argument.
8note 5y ago
Why do that when they can push the activist down a depressive spiral into suicide?
- nickpp 5y ago
  You mean like what they did to Aaron Swartz?

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

They're "beholden to the voters" only in an aggregated sense. Most democracies are representative, so if there's an elite consensus around an issue, it's easy to end up in a situation where a few unpopular policies get enacted or a few popular policies don't. This is ultimately too niche of a topic for many people to be single-issue voters about.

christophilus 5y ago
This, and at least in the US, your choice is really between two candidates who are— in practice— virtually identical on most issues. Want to vote for a pro-privacy, anti-war, anti-monopoly, fiscally responsible, forward-thinking candidate? Great. Your candidate will get 0.0001% of the votes. The Republican and Democrat machines don’t give anyone else a chance.
- clairity 5y ago
  > "Want to vote for a pro-privacy, anti-war, anti-monopoly, fiscally responsible, forward-thinking candidate?" yes! that's totally me in a nutshell. i'm hoping more and more people realize the hegemony that the two-party system represents and votes against it en masse. we need more people standing up against the consolidation of power and wealth in all its forms. that's the only way we return to a healthy and dynamic society.

systemvoltage 5y ago

I'd like to add a few more if I may? Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, Elon Musk, Tim Cook.

q1w2 5y ago

The real danger is when they act in unison. ...as we are seeing developing in China. If anything we need to create moats between big tech and gov't. ...and one of those tactics is breaking up tech monopolies/oligopolies.