3 ms·

I blame the tech companies but I also blame the people who created all this stuff -- programmers, tech startups, and computer science. Those people created a sy

I blame the tech companies but I also blame the people who created all this stuff -- programmers, tech startups, and computer science. Those people created a system that is too easy to use as an ultra-efficient wealth concentrator, and now tech companies are the result.

nologic01 3y ago
we are all cogs in the machine. maybe decades ago the stance of individuals could have made a difference but nowadays its clear that it no longer does. there is a collectively created monster that can only be tamed by something of equivalent and greater collective power: radical government regulation. The EU is doing its part. The US isnt. imho nothing was learned from the previous Microsoft monopoly era. Information technology is not just any business sector. It is the canvas on which everything else plays out. It needs to be regulated in a way that people can go with online life, politics, business etc. without this Damocles sword permanently hanging above us.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I think personal action can still make a difference. What if we were to develop a coalition of people that believed in that, sort of like a union for a healthy society? The coalition would have a common set of standards and ethics, which would include the development of more community-based standards for technology. With such a coalition, we could create our own technology not in the hands of technology companies, and we could be more responsible in the development and use of technology. Then the entire coalition could stop using Google for example...and crush the life out of them. If such a coalition had ten million people in it, it might work if many of them are technologically capable. Ten million seems like a lot but it's only 1 person getting 2 new people to join, who in turn each get 2 new people to join, etc... 24 times.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    I would definitely not be against such a coalition :-). I think we already effectively have (more loosely defined than your idea) a global community that is based on various open source efforts. Open source is vitally important (and not much appreciated in the usual ossified power centers) phenomenon as it proves that in many critical nodes of information technology: desktop and mobile OS, desktop apps, browsers, social media, and all sorts of libraries etc you can perfectly well have alternatives that are more in line with societal objectives. But we have now enough of a track record to know the open source mode cannot scale to provide the backbone that everyone deserves. What is missing is the regulatory framework that will induce (and if needed, force) commercial initiatives to be interoperable, ring fenced, small enough to fear and respect clients and users, the opposite of the too-big-to-fail conglomerates, in short: we need companies that are good digital citizens.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Yes, you are right. I agree. Open source is a HUGE benefit and an excellent way to counteract corporations from holding all the resources. In my own professional workflow I use a lot of it, and I also try to give back by contributing tutorials to using it and recommending it as well. I think the world would be a lot worse off without the open-source world.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Go on, attempt to form that coalition.... And the next thing you know you'll be on every major news network as a "Communist anti-technology union group looking to hold the US back" The US has a brutal history of stamping out unions, do you think you're just going to form this group unopposed without massive amounts of money and resistance looking to stamp out your very existence?
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      > The US has a brutal history of stamping out unions, do you think you're just going to form this group unopposed without massive amounts of money and resistance looking to stamp out your very existence? I wonder how they are going to do that? I have to admit, your statement scares me less than anything I have ever heard...
  - bobbruno 3y ago
    Isn’t the EFF that (or it’s intention,at least)?
- midasuni 3y ago
  the claim 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history.
sumtechguy 3y ago
The regulatory environment also played a big role in this. If you read the original telecommunications act (title I). It is wildly heavy handed on privacy. The TL:DR basically you can pipe this voice data around but you may not use it and if an gov official wants it, get a warrant (even if it is a rubber stamp one). Title II broke most of that to make the internet grow. Well it succeeded doing that wildly. But now the companies are doing what is basically 'natural' for them to do. Consume what they can see. This sort of thing has happened before with telegrams, mail, and plain old telephone. Companies have seized up Title II to make this happen. For example your cell phone is not a phone. It is an internet device and covered under tittle II not I. Also we as users are somewhat to blame as we wanted 'free stuff'. We traded away our freedoms for tweets and facebook posts. There is no 'one entity' to blame here. We all share it quite equally. I have been saying this for many years now. But most of these companies are heading right into a Title III being written just for exactly what they are doing. They better get their act together or no one is going to like the outcome.
waynesonfire 3y ago
I came to say something similar. I think it's important to add that there is a slew of non-technical staff, sales / product managers that foam at the mouth at opportunities to exploit these monopolist ideas. They then hire technical staff to execute. Their entire compensation package depends on this virus like growth.

nologic01 3y ago

we are all cogs in the machine. maybe decades ago the stance of individuals could have made a difference but nowadays its clear that it no longer does. there is a collectively created monster that can only be tamed by something of equivalent and greater collective power: radical government regulation. The EU is doing its part. The US isnt. imho nothing was learned from the previous Microsoft monopoly era. Information technology is not just any business sector. It is the canvas on which everything else plays out. It needs to be regulated in a way that people can go with online life, politics, business etc. without this Damocles sword permanently hanging above us.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I think personal action can still make a difference. What if we were to develop a coalition of people that believed in that, sort of like a union for a healthy society? The coalition would have a common set of standards and ethics, which would include the development of more community-based standards for technology. With such a coalition, we could create our own technology not in the hands of technology companies, and we could be more responsible in the development and use of technology. Then the entire coalition could stop using Google for example...and crush the life out of them. If such a coalition had ten million people in it, it might work if many of them are technologically capable. Ten million seems like a lot but it's only 1 person getting 2 new people to join, who in turn each get 2 new people to join, etc... 24 times.
- nologic01 3y ago
  I would definitely not be against such a coalition :-). I think we already effectively have (more loosely defined than your idea) a global community that is based on various open source efforts. Open source is vitally important (and not much appreciated in the usual ossified power centers) phenomenon as it proves that in many critical nodes of information technology: desktop and mobile OS, desktop apps, browsers, social media, and all sorts of libraries etc you can perfectly well have alternatives that are more in line with societal objectives. But we have now enough of a track record to know the open source mode cannot scale to provide the backbone that everyone deserves. What is missing is the regulatory framework that will induce (and if needed, force) commercial initiatives to be interoperable, ring fenced, small enough to fear and respect clients and users, the opposite of the too-big-to-fail conglomerates, in short: we need companies that are good digital citizens.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Yes, you are right. I agree. Open source is a HUGE benefit and an excellent way to counteract corporations from holding all the resources. In my own professional workflow I use a lot of it, and I also try to give back by contributing tutorials to using it and recommending it as well. I think the world would be a lot worse off without the open-source world.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Go on, attempt to form that coalition.... And the next thing you know you'll be on every major news network as a "Communist anti-technology union group looking to hold the US back" The US has a brutal history of stamping out unions, do you think you're just going to form this group unopposed without massive amounts of money and resistance looking to stamp out your very existence?
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    > The US has a brutal history of stamping out unions, do you think you're just going to form this group unopposed without massive amounts of money and resistance looking to stamp out your very existence? I wonder how they are going to do that? I have to admit, your statement scares me less than anything I have ever heard...
- bobbruno 3y ago
  Isn’t the EFF that (or it’s intention,at least)?
midasuni 3y ago
the claim 'I was only following orders' has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history.

sumtechguy 3y ago

The regulatory environment also played a big role in this. If you read the original telecommunications act (title I). It is wildly heavy handed on privacy. The TL:DR basically you can pipe this voice data around but you may not use it and if an gov official wants it, get a warrant (even if it is a rubber stamp one). Title II broke most of that to make the internet grow. Well it succeeded doing that wildly. But now the companies are doing what is basically 'natural' for them to do. Consume what they can see. This sort of thing has happened before with telegrams, mail, and plain old telephone. Companies have seized up Title II to make this happen. For example your cell phone is not a phone. It is an internet device and covered under tittle II not I. Also we as users are somewhat to blame as we wanted 'free stuff'. We traded away our freedoms for tweets and facebook posts. There is no 'one entity' to blame here. We all share it quite equally. I have been saying this for many years now. But most of these companies are heading right into a Title III being written just for exactly what they are doing. They better get their act together or no one is going to like the outcome.

waynesonfire 3y ago

I came to say something similar. I think it's important to add that there is a slew of non-technical staff, sales / product managers that foam at the mouth at opportunities to exploit these monopolist ideas. They then hire technical staff to execute. Their entire compensation package depends on this virus like growth.