3 ms·

I didn’t rebut either of your quotes because they’re both ascribing intent to the actions of others with very limited information. I’d be rebutting their interp

I didn’t rebut either of your quotes because they’re both ascribing intent to the actions of others with very limited information. I’d be rebutting their interpretation of events, not the events (and I’d also be doing it with the same limited information). I also think the broader point is more important.

leereeves 4y ago
Fair enough, those claims could use some evidence. The author of this article once wrote: > As more of the Internet permeated our lives, so has the expectation that tech companies share a responsibility for content that’s akin to food companies’ responsibility for public health. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-moderation-tech-stack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-... It seems fair to characterize that as believing that "Google and other corporations [should] keep acting as internet police".
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  It could also mean that they share responsibility because of their lobbying efforts. Laws could have been enacted a long time ago and surveillance expectations could have remained strongly on individual privacy instead of fighting like: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 Or https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-over-national-privacy-law/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-ove...