4 ms·

Yes because the minute that someone from the “other” (whichever side you don’t like) party gets in control do you think they are going to do things that you wa

Yes because the minute that someone from the “other” (whichever side you don’t like) party gets in control do you think they are going to do things that you want? Desantis just tried to push through a law that said you have to register with the state if you report on politicians. Do you like that proposed law? Do you want the government to have access to all communications between you and your coworkers? Do you want to be questioned every time that you tell a coworker over Slack “maybe we should talk about this at lunch?” It amazes me that people want the only organization that has a “monopoly on violence” to have more power.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Does that amaze you? Because you should look at the unanswerable moneyed interests that got DeSantis elected in the first place. There's currently an investigation going on about how one particular former President may have broken the reporting law. But for that law, his "catch-and-bury" agreement to keep unpalatable stories about him out of the public eye was perfectly legal. So yes, I do want the organization with a monopoly on violence to have more power of oversight of people with power through money. Especially as long as who has control of those levers changes with the frequency it does.
- scarface74 4y ago
  And we see what the people with “over site” do in Florida. Do you also believe that it was right that the government in Florida went after Disney because the company spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law? Do you think the government has any right to try to have “over site” because the (Democratic) VPs wife got in a tizzy in the 80s because her little ears couldn’t handle NWA releasing a song called “Fuck the Police”? Are you one of those people in power? Because the scenario that someone said was that I financial firms that are highly regulated was that if any employee said on chat to a friend at work, “hey give me call on my cellphone and let’s talk about where we are going after work”, you could be talked to by legal. You are saying that you want an increase by the surveillance state. Have people learned nothing about how the government abuses power from the “War on $x”?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > Do you think the government has any right to try to have “over site” because the (Democratic) VPs wife got in a tizzy in the 80s because her little ears couldn’t handle NWA releasing a song called “Fuck the Police”? Sure. I was there; I remember. I think it was a waste of time but ultimately harmless; it resulted in a few (private, moneyed) corporations deciding not to sell some music that the government had mandated be labeled (which, to be clear, is a wide power the government has; perhaps overused here, but it's no a violation of anyone's rights that they make companies put the ingredient lists on food). Then the Internet happened and that whole thing became irrelevant. Florida is a great example to study these money-power-vs-political-power effects, because were the tables reversed people currently supporting Disney would be horrified. Imagine it was Rupert Murdoch and Fox World with an ultra-right-white-national enclave utterly immune to legal oversight, and the duly-elected Democratic government trying impotently to reign them in. Much as I like the result of Disney;s pushback, the means are deeply disquieting and speak to a completely-dysfunctional corporate-power-vs-state-power relationship that is ripe for abuse. And the wheels of corporate power turn glacially relative to government power; DeSantis, barring a state constitutional amendment, is gone in 2024 as a state governor, but Rupert Murdoch was CEO of News Corp / Fox for 36 years. I'm not 100% for corporate power or 100% for government power. I'm for balancing and pitting the two against each other because they're both effective tools for checking the worst abuses of the other. And make no mistake: when it comes to the FAANGs, what we're seeing is patterns of abuse that need to be reigned in. Requirements for auditing and oversight can be overdone, but in practice, in 2023, the tech sector has been allowed to run with a laissez-faire attitude for decades and has become a vital piece of the modern societal fabric; as a general principle, anything that vital to daily human experience for most citizens needs government oversight to ensure its legal compliance before it becomes Standard Oil or Bell Telephone or Microsoft or Fox Media or, indeed, Disney... Something unanswerable to all but itself. This era of existence is marked by humanity trying to forge a path between a 1984 future and a Brave New World future. There are no simple answers for power allocation.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      > it resulted in a few (private, moneyed) corporations deciding not to sell some music that the government had mandated be labeled (which, to be clear, is a wide power the So you think it is okay that the government trampled on the free speech rights of rappers who were talking about police corruption and there experience years before the internet became ubiquitous where anyone could get it out? > Imagine it was Rupert Murdoch and Fox World with an armor, always taste no and the duly-elected Democratic government trying impotently to reign them in And the government only tried to “rein them in” by punishing them after they spoke out. > when it comes to the FAANGs, what we're seeing is patterns of abuse that need to be reigned in. Well the difference is that no corporation has ever stopped me because I “looked suspicious” because I was walking through my own neighborhood that I looked like I didn’t belong. Nor does it have qualified immunity to get away with doing almost anything. I have agency to not be under the auspices of any corporation - especially a search engine. I don’t have that power under the government. There is no balance on government power except not to give it anymore than absolutely necessary. I’ve never had to worry about my son being harassed by any corporation just for driving down the street. And do you think the government is just going to be happy with surveiling employees?

shadowgovt 4y ago

Does that amaze you? Because you should look at the unanswerable moneyed interests that got DeSantis elected in the first place. There's currently an investigation going on about how one particular former President may have broken the reporting law. But for that law, his "catch-and-bury" agreement to keep unpalatable stories about him out of the public eye was perfectly legal. So yes, I do want the organization with a monopoly on violence to have more power of oversight of people with power through money. Especially as long as who has control of those levers changes with the frequency it does.

scarface74 4y ago
And we see what the people with “over site” do in Florida. Do you also believe that it was right that the government in Florida went after Disney because the company spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law? Do you think the government has any right to try to have “over site” because the (Democratic) VPs wife got in a tizzy in the 80s because her little ears couldn’t handle NWA releasing a song called “Fuck the Police”? Are you one of those people in power? Because the scenario that someone said was that I financial firms that are highly regulated was that if any employee said on chat to a friend at work, “hey give me call on my cellphone and let’s talk about where we are going after work”, you could be talked to by legal. You are saying that you want an increase by the surveillance state. Have people learned nothing about how the government abuses power from the “War on $x”?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > Do you think the government has any right to try to have “over site” because the (Democratic) VPs wife got in a tizzy in the 80s because her little ears couldn’t handle NWA releasing a song called “Fuck the Police”? Sure. I was there; I remember. I think it was a waste of time but ultimately harmless; it resulted in a few (private, moneyed) corporations deciding not to sell some music that the government had mandated be labeled (which, to be clear, is a wide power the government has; perhaps overused here, but it's no a violation of anyone's rights that they make companies put the ingredient lists on food). Then the Internet happened and that whole thing became irrelevant. Florida is a great example to study these money-power-vs-political-power effects, because were the tables reversed people currently supporting Disney would be horrified. Imagine it was Rupert Murdoch and Fox World with an ultra-right-white-national enclave utterly immune to legal oversight, and the duly-elected Democratic government trying impotently to reign them in. Much as I like the result of Disney;s pushback, the means are deeply disquieting and speak to a completely-dysfunctional corporate-power-vs-state-power relationship that is ripe for abuse. And the wheels of corporate power turn glacially relative to government power; DeSantis, barring a state constitutional amendment, is gone in 2024 as a state governor, but Rupert Murdoch was CEO of News Corp / Fox for 36 years. I'm not 100% for corporate power or 100% for government power. I'm for balancing and pitting the two against each other because they're both effective tools for checking the worst abuses of the other. And make no mistake: when it comes to the FAANGs, what we're seeing is patterns of abuse that need to be reigned in. Requirements for auditing and oversight can be overdone, but in practice, in 2023, the tech sector has been allowed to run with a laissez-faire attitude for decades and has become a vital piece of the modern societal fabric; as a general principle, anything that vital to daily human experience for most citizens needs government oversight to ensure its legal compliance before it becomes Standard Oil or Bell Telephone or Microsoft or Fox Media or, indeed, Disney... Something unanswerable to all but itself. This era of existence is marked by humanity trying to forge a path between a 1984 future and a Brave New World future. There are no simple answers for power allocation.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > it resulted in a few (private, moneyed) corporations deciding not to sell some music that the government had mandated be labeled (which, to be clear, is a wide power the So you think it is okay that the government trampled on the free speech rights of rappers who were talking about police corruption and there experience years before the internet became ubiquitous where anyone could get it out? > Imagine it was Rupert Murdoch and Fox World with an armor, always taste no and the duly-elected Democratic government trying impotently to reign them in And the government only tried to “rein them in” by punishing them after they spoke out. > when it comes to the FAANGs, what we're seeing is patterns of abuse that need to be reigned in. Well the difference is that no corporation has ever stopped me because I “looked suspicious” because I was walking through my own neighborhood that I looked like I didn’t belong. Nor does it have qualified immunity to get away with doing almost anything. I have agency to not be under the auspices of any corporation - especially a search engine. I don’t have that power under the government. There is no balance on government power except not to give it anymore than absolutely necessary. I’ve never had to worry about my son being harassed by any corporation just for driving down the street. And do you think the government is just going to be happy with surveiling employees?