4 ms·

Putting this in a sibling comment because it's tangential to my more-relevant response about an alternative business model. --- The claim that citizens of wes

by scubbo 4y ago

Putting this in a sibling comment because it's tangential to my more-relevant response about an alternative business model. --- The claim that citizens of western-style democracies have mechanisms to modify government behaviour is technically true, but meaningless. The average Western citizen has more chance of becoming an Astronaut or solving a Millenium problem than they do of effecting real govenmental change without access to extraordinary social capital or Super-PAC-level donations. Especially given that most western-style democracies' mechanisms consist of "pick which of these two broad bundles of choices you want to support" (as cogman10 pointed out, "the candidate who is opposed to data-tracking" does not really exist as a viable option; and even if they did, they would need to have a broad platform of popular positions, not just that one) - so if the option you want is not offered, you not only need to change voting behaviour to support it, you first need to create that option out of whole cloth.

kylevedder 4y ago
And you think that complaining about tech companies, companies owned by share holders who have no particular obligation to satiate the complaints of non-shareholders, is a more rational strategy to achieve the outcomes you want? Let's be intellectually honest here; the only actual threat to tracking ads as a business is governmental legislation, something which we've already seen occur with the implementation of GDPR in the EU and the US. It's pretty obvious privacy advocates have enough teeth to impact the legislature if they're able to ram those bills though, so I wholesale reject the argument that privacy is a niche complaint and you're powerless to create change in the government.
- scubbo 4y ago
  > And you think that complaining about tech companies[...] is a more rational strategy to achieve the outcomes you want? No, I don't. I was pointing out that your claim that individuals can effect political change is broadly incorrect. That doesn't imply that the alternative (direct petitioning of companies) is effective. Attempting political change probably _is_ a more rational strategy than petitioning tech companies. As an individual, neither seems powerful. > Let's be intellectually honest here; the only actual threat to tracking ads as a business is governmental legislation No disagreement here! > I wholesale reject the argument that privacy is a niche complaint and you're powerless to create change in the government. To be clear, these are two separate claims. Privacy might or might not be a niche complaint - I feel that it is (given how little my non-technical friends care about it), but I'm purely working off anecdata, and I concede that GDPR (and the slew of other Privacy regulations following in its wake) are datapoints that contradict me. The other claim - that individuals are powerless to effect political change - remains undisproven to me. In particular, I reject the position that _individual_ privacy advocates were responsible for GDPR. It's large groups like the EFF (as a sibling commenter pointed out) that cause governments to take notice, not individuals.
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
I disagree vehemently as someone involved in transit and housing activism. The cause did, does, and probably will continue to feel hopeless. There are days I walk out of talking with others about issues or days where a Mayor walks back a commitment that punch you in the gut. But through organization and by looking back over the last 5 years of activism in my community/area, I can see the real work that's been done. (It helps that our work results in infrastructure changes, of course.) As far as a candidate, trust me there are hungry junior political candidates all the time that are happy to take campaign donations and meet their constituents demands. The quickest way to become a popular, well-funded candidate is to represent a wealthy, grassroots cause with no representation. If you're concerned about this, contribute to the EFF, and maybe even consider joining them! Don't put your anger into online zealotry if you live in a democratic country, use that energy to petition the government for change.
- scubbo 4y ago
  > If you're concerned about this, contribute to the EFF Doesn't this just prove my point? No individual can make a difference - only large organizations can.
  - Karrot_Kream 4y ago
    The EFF is hardly a "large organization". But yes, some amount of organization is necessary for political change. Fundamentally, an individual in a democracy pays into a system and cannot change the entire system at their behest.

by scubbo 4y ago

kylevedder 4y ago

And you think that complaining about tech companies, companies owned by share holders who have no particular obligation to satiate the complaints of non-shareholders, is a more rational strategy to achieve the outcomes you want? Let's be intellectually honest here; the only actual threat to tracking ads as a business is governmental legislation, something which we've already seen occur with the implementation of GDPR in the EU and the US. It's pretty obvious privacy advocates have enough teeth to impact the legislature if they're able to ram those bills though, so I wholesale reject the argument that privacy is a niche complaint and you're powerless to create change in the government.

scubbo 4y ago
> And you think that complaining about tech companies[...] is a more rational strategy to achieve the outcomes you want? No, I don't. I was pointing out that your claim that individuals can effect political change is broadly incorrect. That doesn't imply that the alternative (direct petitioning of companies) is effective. Attempting political change probably _is_ a more rational strategy than petitioning tech companies. As an individual, neither seems powerful. > Let's be intellectually honest here; the only actual threat to tracking ads as a business is governmental legislation No disagreement here! > I wholesale reject the argument that privacy is a niche complaint and you're powerless to create change in the government. To be clear, these are two separate claims. Privacy might or might not be a niche complaint - I feel that it is (given how little my non-technical friends care about it), but I'm purely working off anecdata, and I concede that GDPR (and the slew of other Privacy regulations following in its wake) are datapoints that contradict me. The other claim - that individuals are powerless to effect political change - remains undisproven to me. In particular, I reject the position that _individual_ privacy advocates were responsible for GDPR. It's large groups like the EFF (as a sibling commenter pointed out) that cause governments to take notice, not individuals.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

I disagree vehemently as someone involved in transit and housing activism. The cause did, does, and probably will continue to feel hopeless. There are days I walk out of talking with others about issues or days where a Mayor walks back a commitment that punch you in the gut. But through organization and by looking back over the last 5 years of activism in my community/area, I can see the real work that's been done. (It helps that our work results in infrastructure changes, of course.) As far as a candidate, trust me there are hungry junior political candidates all the time that are happy to take campaign donations and meet their constituents demands. The quickest way to become a popular, well-funded candidate is to represent a wealthy, grassroots cause with no representation. If you're concerned about this, contribute to the EFF, and maybe even consider joining them! Don't put your anger into online zealotry if you live in a democratic country, use that energy to petition the government for change.

scubbo 4y ago
> If you're concerned about this, contribute to the EFF Doesn't this just prove my point? No individual can make a difference - only large organizations can.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  The EFF is hardly a "large organization". But yes, some amount of organization is necessary for political change. Fundamentally, an individual in a democracy pays into a system and cannot change the entire system at their behest.