5 ms·

Here's the uncommon opinion. Google/FB, by extension US government, already performs mass surveillance. There are actually 2 solutions to this problem. One is

• DocTomoe 4y ago
  Neither Google nor Facebook has built concentration camps in the past. The same can not be said about state actors. Thus, private companies, especially those in some other country, are inherently more trustworthy than a local government body could ever be.
  • alwayslikethis 4y ago
    Yeah. IMO a good strategy is to rely on companies in a non-friendly country. For example, if you are in a Western country, use a Russian company for stuff that you have to outsource to a 3rd party. If you are in Russia or China, use Google and Facebook all you want.
  • lapinot 4y ago
    Apart from your point being a complete non-sequitur (an example doesn't prove anything), you ought to look at the history of IG Farben (aka Bayer, BASF and other). Or how privatisation is getting to the carceral industry (thank you USA for giving the world the signal that this is the way to go). Or how Total and others high-stakes companies are mixed up with private mercenaries and dealing with terrorists in the middle east. Or how child labour is conveniently hidden behind layers of subcontracting in the electronic and fashion industry. Private companies are all over the place in the facist avant-garde (and this is very relevant today). At least i can vote, inquiry and have theoretically have some means of insight and control into my state, because afaik i don't have these powers, not even in theory, for private megacorps (which in fact have quite much in common with states).
  • JCWasmx86 4y ago
    > Neither Google nor Facebook has built concentration camps in the past. The same can not be said about state actors. Thus, private companies, especially those in some other country, are inherently more trustworthy than a local government body could ever be. This is an argument beyond dystopian. Yes, governments did a lot of bad things in the past (and some are still doing this), but a future, where e.g. the government is only a bunch of companies that would probably really dystopian. You see already a difference between the USA and e.g. Germany. We have decent healthcare, decent public education, a lot of consumer protection, (Hello DSGVO!). If it would even go further, you would have a country where are no unions& employee rights, no consumer protection laws, absolutely nothing, total surveillance. Saying that a government is less trustworthy than e.g. FAANG is really a hyperbole At least you can vote governments out
• jarbus 4y ago
  How does making mass surveillance more common lessen it's impact? To me, that's like saying making COVID more common will lessen it's impact.
  • srcreigh 4y ago
    For one, it would create more investment opportunities for privacy focused services. It's a way to dismantle big techs giant advantage and increase competition. When surveillance is less valuable and more common, privacy is more valuable and less common, so we might get it. Again, this might be totally flawed, but I would be curious why it is necessarily flawed.
• JCWasmx86 4y ago
  No matter what, mass surveillance is always wrong. Mass surveillance is basically for against every constitution, Grundgesetz, declaration of rights that is worth its salt
  • srcreigh 4y ago
    Are you saying the FBI doesn't inquire to FB about chats for reasons? It seems to be the status quo in US, Russia, China at least. Why tolerate it there, while not tolerating it in smaller countries too?
• solarkraft 4y ago
  > making mass surveillance more common, lessening the impact of mass surveillance The fuck?