4 ms·

Isn't that whataboutism?

scarface_74 3y ago
It’s a flawed analogy. If you are worried about being tracked and surveilled, there are much larger things to worry about than an ad tech company masquerading as a search engine. You should be worried about a government that wants to record every thing you do eight hours a day when you are at work. If you ever say to a coworker over an internal Slack “let’s talk about this over lunch”, you are automatically assumed guilty of…trying to maintain an illegal monopoly over…ad tech??? And it’s easy just not to go to Google.com if you don’t like their practices. You don’t need the government for that
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > a government that wants to record every thing you do eight hours a day when you are at work This would be concerning. > ever say to a coworker over an internal Slack “let’s talk about this over lunch”, you are automatically assumed guilty This isn’t happening.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    It actually is. With Google being sued, if you start talking to a coworker and then say “let’s talk about this <on a none work recorded communication channel>, you may very well be questioned about what you wanted to talk about. The government is forcing Google to retain all internal messaging communications.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      Your libertarian take disregards that Google is only answerable to its shareholders and uses money as a primary motivator while the government is answerable to the people it governs and has public good as its primary motivator.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        It’s not libertarianism. It’s a strong distrust of government power because I see what it does to minorities and how the “other” party will abuse it to suppress speech. We see it on the state level where companies are afraid to speak out against Desantis because of retaliation. I define the “other” party as “whichever one you disagree with”. I’m not trying to get into a right vs left argument. The difference is that the government is not accountable to the majority either between gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc. For instance, no matter how you feel about abortion, every time a referendum comes up for a vote by the public to restrict it - it’s always defeated even in conservative states yet the legislators go out of their way to work around the people’s will. The same is true about legalized weed in conservative states or expanding Medicaid. I can much easier not fall under the influence of Google than the government. The government is the only force that has a “monopoly on violence”. A powerful government can do much more harm than an adTech company. As far as the government having the “public good as a motivator”, are we talking about the same government? The one that goes out of its way not to be answerable to people? The one that funds the “War on Drugs”, “civil forfeiture”, “eminent domain” to take property to give it to another business, etc?
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        The government has public good as its mandate. It makes mistakes because people make mistakes. It has the avenues available to correct those mistakes. Google has profit and return for shareholders as its mandate. Anything it does towards that end is not a mistake and will not be corrected.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Well it can be “mandated” all it wants to, it has history of not happening. It wasn’t a “mistake” that the Florida governor (I live in Orlando) went out of its way to punish a corporation because it disagreed with a law. Nor is it a “mistake” that the government seizes people’s property through civil forfeiture without a trial or that the government is actively fighting the will of the majority of the population. Again, Google doesn’t have the power to do anything but serve ads. The government has the court system, a police department with military weapons, etc.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > if you start talking to a coworker and then say “let’s talk about this <on a none work recorded communication channel>, you may very well be questioned about what you wanted to talk about Sure? This is how investigations work? There is no automatic assumption of guilt, which is what you said. I’m sceptical of government overreach. But asking what was discussed in a meeting is incredibly standard investigative fare. > government is forcing Google to retain all internal messaging communications This is wrong. It’s forcing them inasmuch as my asking what you had for lunch forces] you to wear a wire.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        > Sure? This is how investigations work? There is no automatic assumption of guilt, which is what you said. I know I would hate to have been questioned about why I wanted to take a conversation out of my corporate channel when I was trying to have an after work “get together” with a cute coworker over a decade ago (that cute coworker is now my wife). > I’m sceptical of government overreach. But asking what was discussed in a meeting is incredibly standard investigative fare. It’s not just what was discussed, the government is assuming any time that you ask a coworker to “call you” that they are going to question you. I know I would never talk to anyone in the government without my own lawyer - and that would cost money.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > I would hate to have been questioned about why I wanted to take a conversation out of my corporate channel Okay? That doesn’t make the line of questioning illegitimate. I, too, dislike being questioned about anything by anyone. > the government is assuming any time that you ask a coworker to “call you” that they are going to question you Yes. They will also pull your call records and ask you what was discussed. Again, this is super normal. What, would you like to block investigators from asking what was discussed at meetings? > I would never talk to anyone in the government without my own lawyer You’re complaining about the government’s general right to investigate? You know that before these records you would still be questioned, right?
- vlovich123 3y ago
  > You should be worried about a government that wants to record every thing you do eight hours a day when you are at work. I am, but actually the government is under many more legal constraints to do so than a private party. That’s why the government does all these end runs to buy data off the commercial data streams. Cut off those private data streams and the ability for government to do this gets significantly reduced.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    You believe that the government actually follows the law and that judges don’t just rubber stamp requests?
    - nuancebydefault 3y ago
      You are questioning the benefits of having a government? I would say, {1} be happy that you have one and {2} be happy that yours is not among the worst. I think a fully free unregulated market would end up horribly for 99 percent of people.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        I’m questioning the benefits of not having an unlimited government. Who exactly is Google - an adtech company “harming”? You have the agency to not use Google as does everyone else.
        nuancebydefault 3y ago
        I get what you are saying and the reasoning. I agree to disagree.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      By no means is it perfect. Never claimed that. But generally you find that mass egregious bad practices by the government either get stopped or legalized (eg Bush’s NSA tapping into telephony systems directly and spying was quite a scandal). So yes, the government does all sorts of shady shit and have forever and they usually try to keep it as quiet as possible for as long as possible. That has nothing to do with private companies misbehaviors which is what we’re talking about here. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

It’s a flawed analogy. If you are worried about being tracked and surveilled, there are much larger things to worry about than an ad tech company masquerading as a search engine. You should be worried about a government that wants to record every thing you do eight hours a day when you are at work. If you ever say to a coworker over an internal Slack “let’s talk about this over lunch”, you are automatically assumed guilty of…trying to maintain an illegal monopoly over…ad tech??? And it’s easy just not to go to Google.com if you don’t like their practices. You don’t need the government for that

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> a government that wants to record every thing you do eight hours a day when you are at work This would be concerning. > ever say to a coworker over an internal Slack “let’s talk about this over lunch”, you are automatically assumed guilty This isn’t happening.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  It actually is. With Google being sued, if you start talking to a coworker and then say “let’s talk about this <on a none work recorded communication channel>, you may very well be questioned about what you wanted to talk about. The government is forcing Google to retain all internal messaging communications.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Your libertarian take disregards that Google is only answerable to its shareholders and uses money as a primary motivator while the government is answerable to the people it governs and has public good as its primary motivator.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      It’s not libertarianism. It’s a strong distrust of government power because I see what it does to minorities and how the “other” party will abuse it to suppress speech. We see it on the state level where companies are afraid to speak out against Desantis because of retaliation. I define the “other” party as “whichever one you disagree with”. I’m not trying to get into a right vs left argument. The difference is that the government is not accountable to the majority either between gerrymandering, the electoral college, etc. For instance, no matter how you feel about abortion, every time a referendum comes up for a vote by the public to restrict it - it’s always defeated even in conservative states yet the legislators go out of their way to work around the people’s will. The same is true about legalized weed in conservative states or expanding Medicaid. I can much easier not fall under the influence of Google than the government. The government is the only force that has a “monopoly on violence”. A powerful government can do much more harm than an adTech company. As far as the government having the “public good as a motivator”, are we talking about the same government? The one that goes out of its way not to be answerable to people? The one that funds the “War on Drugs”, “civil forfeiture”, “eminent domain” to take property to give it to another business, etc?
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        The government has public good as its mandate. It makes mistakes because people make mistakes. It has the avenues available to correct those mistakes. Google has profit and return for shareholders as its mandate. Anything it does towards that end is not a mistake and will not be corrected.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Well it can be “mandated” all it wants to, it has history of not happening. It wasn’t a “mistake” that the Florida governor (I live in Orlando) went out of its way to punish a corporation because it disagreed with a law. Nor is it a “mistake” that the government seizes people’s property through civil forfeiture without a trial or that the government is actively fighting the will of the majority of the population. Again, Google doesn’t have the power to do anything but serve ads. The government has the court system, a police department with military weapons, etc.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > if you start talking to a coworker and then say “let’s talk about this <on a none work recorded communication channel>, you may very well be questioned about what you wanted to talk about Sure? This is how investigations work? There is no automatic assumption of guilt, which is what you said. I’m sceptical of government overreach. But asking what was discussed in a meeting is incredibly standard investigative fare. > government is forcing Google to retain all internal messaging communications This is wrong. It’s forcing them inasmuch as my asking what you had for lunch forces] you to wear a wire.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      > Sure? This is how investigations work? There is no automatic assumption of guilt, which is what you said. I know I would hate to have been questioned about why I wanted to take a conversation out of my corporate channel when I was trying to have an after work “get together” with a cute coworker over a decade ago (that cute coworker is now my wife). > I’m sceptical of government overreach. But asking what was discussed in a meeting is incredibly standard investigative fare. It’s not just what was discussed, the government is assuming any time that you ask a coworker to “call you” that they are going to question you. I know I would never talk to anyone in the government without my own lawyer - and that would cost money.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > I would hate to have been questioned about why I wanted to take a conversation out of my corporate channel Okay? That doesn’t make the line of questioning illegitimate. I, too, dislike being questioned about anything by anyone. > the government is assuming any time that you ask a coworker to “call you” that they are going to question you Yes. They will also pull your call records and ask you what was discussed. Again, this is super normal. What, would you like to block investigators from asking what was discussed at meetings? > I would never talk to anyone in the government without my own lawyer You’re complaining about the government’s general right to investigate? You know that before these records you would still be questioned, right?
vlovich123 3y ago
> You should be worried about a government that wants to record every thing you do eight hours a day when you are at work. I am, but actually the government is under many more legal constraints to do so than a private party. That’s why the government does all these end runs to buy data off the commercial data streams. Cut off those private data streams and the ability for government to do this gets significantly reduced.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  You believe that the government actually follows the law and that judges don’t just rubber stamp requests?
  - nuancebydefault 3y ago
    You are questioning the benefits of having a government? I would say, {1} be happy that you have one and {2} be happy that yours is not among the worst. I think a fully free unregulated market would end up horribly for 99 percent of people.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      I’m questioning the benefits of not having an unlimited government. Who exactly is Google - an adtech company “harming”? You have the agency to not use Google as does everyone else.
      - nuancebydefault 3y ago
        I get what you are saying and the reasoning. I agree to disagree.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    By no means is it perfect. Never claimed that. But generally you find that mass egregious bad practices by the government either get stopped or legalized (eg Bush’s NSA tapping into telephony systems directly and spying was quite a scandal). So yes, the government does all sorts of shady shit and have forever and they usually try to keep it as quiet as possible for as long as possible. That has nothing to do with private companies misbehaviors which is what we’re talking about here. Two wrongs don’t make a right.