5 ms·

Separation of church and state is about the government not enforcing or favoring one religion over others. I'm having trouble seeing the analogy applied to sepa

Separation of church and state is about the government not enforcing or favoring one religion over others. I'm having trouble seeing the analogy applied to separation of big tech and big government. The separation of big tech and big government is a different categorical issue. But does this issue actually exist? At the end of the day, the government holds all the power over big tech as it should. And you do have a chance to say how your government should operate.

bioemerl 4y ago
Government cannot ask big tech for data on their users. Big tech is not allowed to lobby for the government to pass certain laws or restrictions or whatever else. Big tech is not allowed to voluntarily or in any form shape or a communicate any data with the government unless it is strictly related to government business and employees. The government may not communicate in any form shape or way any data to big tech unless the conditions from the above paragraph apply. Government may continue to regulate technology companies, but the data they collect on their users is considered strictly not in the domain of any form of government. Unless we are talking about court cases with discovery and the defendant being able to defend themselves. If someone uses Facebook to commit a crime Facebook should be liable to reveal data about the messages they sent by court order for a *public* trial.
- jonnybgood 4y ago
  There are severe consequences to what you're suggesting with a net negative to society. Before you know it we'll have Big Tech Banks being a money launderer's wet dream. Kinda like how it is now, except all their data is in a bank the government can't touch or will ever know about.
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    I would believe regulations on banking would apply regardless. You would apply these laws only to places where social media companies are dealing with the people's day today data and interactions, not stuff like banking. It's the law, it'll be written by a billion lawyers who consider edge cases like this and this little comic will apply. https://xkcd.com/1494/ https://xkcd.com/1494/
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
      You're oversimplifying the law. There's no legal speak as to what constitutes Big Tech. What if it's a social media company that does financial transactions? Overall, you're giving more power to Big Tech and lessening the power of government over Big Tech. They will be able to hide their offenses under the cover of "user's data", which the government is not allowed to see.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        > There's no legal speak as to what constitutes Big Tech. What if it's a social media company that does financial transactions? Again. This is literally what law is all about. All existing law was created from baselines like these, and this is a very very poor excuse to refuse to regulate a massive and dangerous industry. Refusing the ability for the government to absorb the data of big tech is not empowering them, it's weakening them.
  - CyanBird 4y ago
    > There are severe consequences to what you're suggesting with a net negative to society There are always severe consequences, there are severe consequences if thhe status quo remains as is, there are severe consequences if the status quo changes We have got banking privacy regulations through the world, we have got religious and government split laws through the world. These both work and are needed It is due time big tech becomes split from explicit government interference with political aims and goals as shown on the Twitter Papers. This NSA bullshit is also not acceptable
- themitigating 4y ago
  Why just big tech? Why not big oil or any business lobbying?
  - bioemerl 4y ago
    Because big tech has access to when you sleep and wake up, your opinions, what you say every day in your house, and your literal heart rate.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Which you give them by choice to use their products.
      - bioemerl 4y ago
        Sure, but I think we could all agree that it's really important not to let the government have that sort of data.
captainoats 4y ago
I think OP is referencing how the royal/political class and clergy shared power in a sort of adversarial relationship in classical European society.

bioemerl 4y ago

Government cannot ask big tech for data on their users. Big tech is not allowed to lobby for the government to pass certain laws or restrictions or whatever else. Big tech is not allowed to voluntarily or in any form shape or a communicate any data with the government unless it is strictly related to government business and employees. The government may not communicate in any form shape or way any data to big tech unless the conditions from the above paragraph apply. Government may continue to regulate technology companies, but the data they collect on their users is considered strictly not in the domain of any form of government. Unless we are talking about court cases with discovery and the defendant being able to defend themselves. If someone uses Facebook to commit a crime Facebook should be liable to reveal data about the messages they sent by court order for a *public* trial.

jonnybgood 4y ago
There are severe consequences to what you're suggesting with a net negative to society. Before you know it we'll have Big Tech Banks being a money launderer's wet dream. Kinda like how it is now, except all their data is in a bank the government can't touch or will ever know about.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  I would believe regulations on banking would apply regardless. You would apply these laws only to places where social media companies are dealing with the people's day today data and interactions, not stuff like banking. It's the law, it'll be written by a billion lawyers who consider edge cases like this and this little comic will apply. https://xkcd.com/1494/ https://xkcd.com/1494/
  - jonnybgood 4y ago
    You're oversimplifying the law. There's no legal speak as to what constitutes Big Tech. What if it's a social media company that does financial transactions? Overall, you're giving more power to Big Tech and lessening the power of government over Big Tech. They will be able to hide their offenses under the cover of "user's data", which the government is not allowed to see.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      > There's no legal speak as to what constitutes Big Tech. What if it's a social media company that does financial transactions? Again. This is literally what law is all about. All existing law was created from baselines like these, and this is a very very poor excuse to refuse to regulate a massive and dangerous industry. Refusing the ability for the government to absorb the data of big tech is not empowering them, it's weakening them.
- CyanBird 4y ago
  > There are severe consequences to what you're suggesting with a net negative to society There are always severe consequences, there are severe consequences if thhe status quo remains as is, there are severe consequences if the status quo changes We have got banking privacy regulations through the world, we have got religious and government split laws through the world. These both work and are needed It is due time big tech becomes split from explicit government interference with political aims and goals as shown on the Twitter Papers. This NSA bullshit is also not acceptable
themitigating 4y ago
Why just big tech? Why not big oil or any business lobbying?
- bioemerl 4y ago
  Because big tech has access to when you sleep and wake up, your opinions, what you say every day in your house, and your literal heart rate.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Which you give them by choice to use their products.
    - bioemerl 4y ago
      Sure, but I think we could all agree that it's really important not to let the government have that sort of data.

captainoats 4y ago

I think OP is referencing how the royal/political class and clergy shared power in a sort of adversarial relationship in classical European society.