7 ms·

I agree with the overall view but, corporations with more power than states is the wrong frame, IMO. What we're seeing here is symbiosis, not competition. Goog

I agree with the overall view but, corporations with more power than states is the wrong frame, IMO. What we're seeing here is symbiosis, not competition. Google empowers (overpowers) the state and the state empowers Google. It's state action that required and legitimised automated & invasive "crime detection," while requiring and legitimising underlying the underlying data collection and privacy invasion that forms a pillar of Google's ad business. Google's lobbying and advisory efforts, and their position as a big competent partner empowers the state. When citizens lobby them to "do something" to protect children, they go to Google to borrow their power. "Centralisation" is too zeitgeist and has the wrong connotation, but it's close. "Convergence" is probably a better term. Actual tensions between State(s), Google and say Apple are minor compared to symbiotic reinforcement. We're seeing one small element of Google-powered policing here. The totality is likely much broader, and law enforcement is and will be very dependant on this. Apple make more (at a 100% profit margin) selling Google their defaults than they (or anyone) could possibly make competing.

jeffreygoesto 4y ago
This is as true as sad. This kind of centralization of power will end the world we know. Information asymmetry enforces itself automacically. What a bunch of sheep we are. Including the high paid henchmen of power reading this.
- majewsky 4y ago
  > Information asymmetry enforces itself automacically. If that were a universal rule, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment could never have happened the way they did.
  - jeffreygoesto 4y ago
    True. But it is more often so than not. For example women were actively kept from being equal, to quite some extent by not educating them equally. Also the ages of feudalism were quite long until something finally changed.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  I think this problem doesn't really lie along the axis of centralization of power. Google is taking on policing power because the actual police are more or less absent on its platform (because of technical competency and complex jurisdictional issues). Is that an example centralization or decentralization? It's a little of both. The real problem, IMO, is best described as "public power in private hands."
AndrewThrowaway 4y ago
I could argue that the State is becoming irrelevant as laws controlling corporations are written by the same corporations (through lobbying and general involvement as an "experts of the field"). These laws are written not only be serving the corporation but also making the corporation blameless. So it is not a symbiosis per se but rather complete overtake of host (State). State becoming irrelevant makes politics a reality show.
- FranksTV 4y ago
  Tell that to the Ukrainians.
- pas 4y ago
  While this is a very popular cynical view, it simply doesn't explain much. Corporations would like many many things that are not happening, because certain groups of people want otherwise. (Eg. cheap immigrant labor, less restriction on building, lowering of tariffs, repeal of the Jones Act.) Though you could say that protectionism benefits a lot of companies, but a decrease in it would benefit more (and bigger ones).
  - nswest23 4y ago
    By the time it explains more it will be too late. This is a prognostication - a warning about where we're headed. It's a caution sign by a trailhead leading to a washed out bridge.
- riedel 4y ago
  The counter view is that we are all becoming to apolitical and the world is becoming too fuzzy/overcomplex in our view, so that our traditional political system can cope with them. The thesis, antithesis, symbiosis mechanism described by Hegel has produced a great blur of least bad options for the majority (some being at least really bad for a few) . It would be up to the intellectuals to at least develop a more inclusive antithesis. I am only seeing hyper-capitalist BS as a proposed "radical" option. A revolution needs a good cause...
- dalbasal 4y ago
negamax 4y ago
It's not too far fetched. I have been discriminated with Revolut. With corps it's as simple as who's on the other end of the line. Not very different from TSA singling out person of certain colors. I approached the state to intervene and was simply told it's out of their remit because even though Revolut can operate in the state, it doesn't have the license. By the time you reach to the other end of rabbit hole, it's not worth the hassle. Voting with dollars works with corps so they are self correcting, in the sense of they want to keep their customer base. But what happens when someone is poor enough to not be their customer? Or they are rich enough to overlook discriminatory behavior of their employees? In the end invisible hand of capitalism sorts out corporations. But OPs example of a ruined life is totally possible. Yes, state can be more powerful but by the time it reacts, it might be too late.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  The state can also send you off to die in a war. It's not as though it is better than corporations. Just different. And it is no more likely to cater for small minorities than a corporation; it just claims it will. If there's political will then it might happen, just as businesses are started to cater for emerging markets. But there's no guarantee.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  >> Voting with dollars works with corps It does not. This is a silly myth. It works in the sense that if people don't buy, companies change. There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. It just doesn't work IRL.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. Nonsense. As a prominent example in tech, Microsoft has become a very different company thanks to seeing their customer base eroding under their old ways. They had to shape up to remain relevant, and I'd say did a decent job of doing so. As a farmer, the market voted that they want non-GMO soybeans for food consumption, and now that makes the biggest crop grown on my farm. GMO soys would be a lot easier, but I am ultimately beholden to what the customer will pay for. If I don't grow them my neighbour will and with his profits he'll improve his overall efficiency until I can no longer compete with any crop. Voting with your wallet works just fine. But that, of course, does not mean your vote will win. Like in governmental elections, just because you believe in something doesn't mean anyone else does.
cm2187 4y ago
It’s also largely the state deputising corporations to do law enforcement without judicial oversight. We have seen this in banking for years where banks have become liable for the misdeeds of their clients and are effectively applying an over-cautious approach of aggressively investigating and banning clients, that makes the most zealous stop-and-frisk policies look mild in comparison. You live in a world where you cannot not have a bank account, or a smartphone, or an email address.

jeffreygoesto 4y ago

This is as true as sad. This kind of centralization of power will end the world we know. Information asymmetry enforces itself automacically. What a bunch of sheep we are. Including the high paid henchmen of power reading this.

majewsky 4y ago
> Information asymmetry enforces itself automacically. If that were a universal rule, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment could never have happened the way they did.
- jeffreygoesto 4y ago
  True. But it is more often so than not. For example women were actively kept from being equal, to quite some extent by not educating them equally. Also the ages of feudalism were quite long until something finally changed.
jrumbut 4y ago
I think this problem doesn't really lie along the axis of centralization of power. Google is taking on policing power because the actual police are more or less absent on its platform (because of technical competency and complex jurisdictional issues). Is that an example centralization or decentralization? It's a little of both. The real problem, IMO, is best described as "public power in private hands."

AndrewThrowaway 4y ago

I could argue that the State is becoming irrelevant as laws controlling corporations are written by the same corporations (through lobbying and general involvement as an "experts of the field"). These laws are written not only be serving the corporation but also making the corporation blameless. So it is not a symbiosis per se but rather complete overtake of host (State). State becoming irrelevant makes politics a reality show.

FranksTV 4y ago
Tell that to the Ukrainians.
pas 4y ago
While this is a very popular cynical view, it simply doesn't explain much. Corporations would like many many things that are not happening, because certain groups of people want otherwise. (Eg. cheap immigrant labor, less restriction on building, lowering of tariffs, repeal of the Jones Act.) Though you could say that protectionism benefits a lot of companies, but a decrease in it would benefit more (and bigger ones).
- nswest23 4y ago
  By the time it explains more it will be too late. This is a prognostication - a warning about where we're headed. It's a caution sign by a trailhead leading to a washed out bridge.
riedel 4y ago
The counter view is that we are all becoming to apolitical and the world is becoming too fuzzy/overcomplex in our view, so that our traditional political system can cope with them. The thesis, antithesis, symbiosis mechanism described by Hegel has produced a great blur of least bad options for the majority (some being at least really bad for a few) . It would be up to the intellectuals to at least develop a more inclusive antithesis. I am only seeing hyper-capitalist BS as a proposed "radical" option. A revolution needs a good cause...
dalbasal 4y ago

negamax 4y ago

It's not too far fetched. I have been discriminated with Revolut. With corps it's as simple as who's on the other end of the line. Not very different from TSA singling out person of certain colors. I approached the state to intervene and was simply told it's out of their remit because even though Revolut can operate in the state, it doesn't have the license. By the time you reach to the other end of rabbit hole, it's not worth the hassle. Voting with dollars works with corps so they are self correcting, in the sense of they want to keep their customer base. But what happens when someone is poor enough to not be their customer? Or they are rich enough to overlook discriminatory behavior of their employees? In the end invisible hand of capitalism sorts out corporations. But OPs example of a ruined life is totally possible. Yes, state can be more powerful but by the time it reacts, it might be too late.

robertlagrant 4y ago
The state can also send you off to die in a war. It's not as though it is better than corporations. Just different. And it is no more likely to cater for small minorities than a corporation; it just claims it will. If there's political will then it might happen, just as businesses are started to cater for emerging markets. But there's no guarantee.
dalbasal 4y ago
>> Voting with dollars works with corps It does not. This is a silly myth. It works in the sense that if people don't buy, companies change. There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. It just doesn't work IRL.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. Nonsense. As a prominent example in tech, Microsoft has become a very different company thanks to seeing their customer base eroding under their old ways. They had to shape up to remain relevant, and I'd say did a decent job of doing so. As a farmer, the market voted that they want non-GMO soybeans for food consumption, and now that makes the biggest crop grown on my farm. GMO soys would be a lot easier, but I am ultimately beholden to what the customer will pay for. If I don't grow them my neighbour will and with his profits he'll improve his overall efficiency until I can no longer compete with any crop. Voting with your wallet works just fine. But that, of course, does not mean your vote will win. Like in governmental elections, just because you believe in something doesn't mean anyone else does.

cm2187 4y ago

It’s also largely the state deputising corporations to do law enforcement without judicial oversight. We have seen this in banking for years where banks have become liable for the misdeeds of their clients and are effectively applying an over-cautious approach of aggressively investigating and banning clients, that makes the most zealous stop-and-frisk policies look mild in comparison. You live in a world where you cannot not have a bank account, or a smartphone, or an email address.