4 ms·

> So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided No comparing government power and the ha

> So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided No comparing government power and the harm they can inflict (taking away your freedom) to corporate power (they can take away pictures of little Johny) are night and day. I can live my whole life without dealing with Google. > can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corporate process has led to improper deprivation of liberties (jail time and the like)? In a very realistic scenario that someone said happens in highly regulated industries is that if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers. States are trying to pass laws where social media companies have to verify your identity and your age before you can post. Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat. Government is arresting people based on their chat messages where they are talking about using pills that facilitate abortion between grown people? Do I need to go on? Is it worth having the government intrude in your life to protect your pictures of little Johny?

shadowgovt 4y ago
> if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers. So what? So you have to explain that you didn't violate the auditing laws? That's hardly a huge burden. Don't use corporate assets for personal communication, problem solved. > Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat And they shouldn't. But the point is: for most users who haven't bothered to set up something like IRC, corporations already do. And you continue to harp on the ways that government can impact personal civil liberties when I am still talking about the ways government can restrict corporations from using unchecked power to make people's lives hell. For the purposes of this discussion, chat logs and abortion are irrelevant. Unless you think the personal right to have an abortion is somehow analogous to the corporate right to, what, Dodge tax law? Use dark money to fund a candidate like DeSantis getting into office? If you're concerned about government overreach and a resulting threat to personal civil liberties, the best defense we have against it is strengthening and enforcing existing corporate auditing law. Because everything you're concerned about regarding civil liberties gets exponentially worse when corporations can buy politicians. Government and corporate power aligning behind a common goal is on the road to fascism. I'm advocating for setting those power bases against each other.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > So what? So you have to explain that you didn't violate the auditing laws? That's hardly a huge burden. Don't use corporate assets for personal communication, problem solved. So are you okay with the government subpoenaing your private phone communications because they think when you asked your coworker to call you on your personal phone to talk about where you wanted to go out drinking? Fascism is when the government controls every area of your life and of corporations. Do you think giving the government more control of the private sector will lessen the chance of fascism?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > So are you okay with the government subpoenaing your private phone communications You keep bringing it back to personal civil liberty because you don't have an answer to the question "So why is more government oversight of corporations bad?" I actually have no problem with such a subpoena being attempted (it is part of the regular process of investigating a crime), but I have a problem with a court rubber-stamping it. I have no problem with the corporation I'm working for being obligated to track and furnish similar records for any corporate assets I use, and to be obligated to ask questions if they catch wind that I might be trying to skirt auditing law by pushing conversations that should be legally audited private. Catch the difference? > Fascism is when the government controls every area of your life and of corporations. Do you think giving the government more control of the private sector will lessen the chance of fascism? I actually do because the definition you gave is not actually what fascism is. Fascism is a political movement emphasizing extreme nationalism, a supremacy mythos of that nation, and the militarism necessary to support such an inherently unstable structure. Among its tools can be usurpation of corporations. But tight control of corporations is also a hallmark of socialism and communism, among other structures. You may as well say its wrong to breathe air because fascists do that too. A healthy democracy reigns in the excesses of an unfettered corporate sector. Those excesses, left unchecked, can (not will, but can) result in, among other things, fascist-leaning private company owners throwing in the power of their corporations behind like-minded politicians and building the machine that facilitates a Mussolini or Hitler rising to power. Mussolini, in particular, was funded by Italian industrialists.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers. So what? So you have to explain that you didn't violate the auditing laws? That's hardly a huge burden. Don't use corporate assets for personal communication, problem solved. > Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat And they shouldn't. But the point is: for most users who haven't bothered to set up something like IRC, corporations already do. And you continue to harp on the ways that government can impact personal civil liberties when I am still talking about the ways government can restrict corporations from using unchecked power to make people's lives hell. For the purposes of this discussion, chat logs and abortion are irrelevant. Unless you think the personal right to have an abortion is somehow analogous to the corporate right to, what, Dodge tax law? Use dark money to fund a candidate like DeSantis getting into office? If you're concerned about government overreach and a resulting threat to personal civil liberties, the best defense we have against it is strengthening and enforcing existing corporate auditing law. Because everything you're concerned about regarding civil liberties gets exponentially worse when corporations can buy politicians. Government and corporate power aligning behind a common goal is on the road to fascism. I'm advocating for setting those power bases against each other.

scarface74 4y ago
> So what? So you have to explain that you didn't violate the auditing laws? That's hardly a huge burden. Don't use corporate assets for personal communication, problem solved. So are you okay with the government subpoenaing your private phone communications because they think when you asked your coworker to call you on your personal phone to talk about where you wanted to go out drinking? Fascism is when the government controls every area of your life and of corporations. Do you think giving the government more control of the private sector will lessen the chance of fascism?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > So are you okay with the government subpoenaing your private phone communications You keep bringing it back to personal civil liberty because you don't have an answer to the question "So why is more government oversight of corporations bad?" I actually have no problem with such a subpoena being attempted (it is part of the regular process of investigating a crime), but I have a problem with a court rubber-stamping it. I have no problem with the corporation I'm working for being obligated to track and furnish similar records for any corporate assets I use, and to be obligated to ask questions if they catch wind that I might be trying to skirt auditing law by pushing conversations that should be legally audited private. Catch the difference? > Fascism is when the government controls every area of your life and of corporations. Do you think giving the government more control of the private sector will lessen the chance of fascism? I actually do because the definition you gave is not actually what fascism is. Fascism is a political movement emphasizing extreme nationalism, a supremacy mythos of that nation, and the militarism necessary to support such an inherently unstable structure. Among its tools can be usurpation of corporations. But tight control of corporations is also a hallmark of socialism and communism, among other structures. You may as well say its wrong to breathe air because fascists do that too. A healthy democracy reigns in the excesses of an unfettered corporate sector. Those excesses, left unchecked, can (not will, but can) result in, among other things, fascist-leaning private company owners throwing in the power of their corporations behind like-minded politicians and building the machine that facilitates a Mussolini or Hitler rising to power. Mussolini, in particular, was funded by Italian industrialists.