6 ms·

I that this is going to end much more badly than people realize. I mean it isn’t the definition of fascism when corporations collude with governments? So isn’t

I that this is going to end much more badly than people realize. I mean it isn’t the definition of fascism when corporations collude with governments? So isn’t this what we’re seeing here?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
smoldesu 3y ago
I wouldn't say it's characteristically fascist, but your instinct that all this will end poorly is probably right. Ever since the Snowden leaks, we've known that multiple nations built up a digital power disparity that can stockpile exploits and apply them for petty purposes. NSO Group proved that it can be done practically silently, to any phone, with no extra software. Situations like the Canada/India murder probe also recently suggested that supposedly-secure channels can be intercepted anyways. One can only imagine what China or the NSA is fully capable of today. So far we've avoided catastrophe, but it does feel increasingly like the surveillance and internet control lines have already been drawn. I'd hear out anyone who wants to steelman a nicer interpretation of things, though!
- clubm8 3y ago
  [dead]
ramesh31 3y ago
>I that this is going to end much more badly than people realize. The state of web surveillance today will seem quaint compared to what's coming. Things like Quest 3 and Apple Vision are going to be just the beginning of it, but once everyone is walking around with AR devices, you will have no option of opting out of the point cloud. These companies will have a realtime graph of where and what everyone in public is doing at all times, even those who've never used any services. It's terrifying.
- clubm8 3y ago
  [dead]
ben_w 3y ago
> it isn’t the definition of fascism when corporations collude with governments (As this question only makes sense to ask if you meant "isn't it" rather than "it isn't", I'm going to make the obvious assumption) That's the first time I've heard this definition for fascism. Normally it's defined as authoritarian nationalism, having a centralised autocratic dictatorial leader, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and propaganda to support the belief in some natural social hierarchy to maintain all that.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  I have the feeling that "isn’t the definition of" became a hollow phrase meant to raise the drama on the word which follows it.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Benito Mussolini famously equated fascism with corporatism, although the latter term has a somewhat different meaning in Europe from how Americans would typically read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  Eh, Fascism is a specific version of authoritarian nationalism, but you can have the latter without it being the former (e.g. Napoleonic France, the Kaiserreich). We never refer to modern China as fascist and it has all of those qualities. I can't think of an authoritarian nationalist leader who didn't also have a significant measure of control over industry as well, so I think authoritarianism in general usually will involve a high degree of state control.
- junofan 3y ago
  The corporate state is a pretty big piece of the puzzle you’re missing. I’m generally confused when people today throw around the word “fascist.”
motohagiography 3y ago
There was a time I would have agreed abuses like these would end badly, but after seeing the effects of the Snowden and Wikileaks revelations about how nihilistic and evil our institutions can be, I doubt the reaction to these or other surveillance realities will come to much. The main effect of those disclosures was a rise in populism, but even with the loss of the White House for a term, it had no lasting impact and that populist reaction has been effectively quashed. If you want to effect change, get in earlier when it's still just the crazy fringe talking about it, like 25 years ago, or 25 years from now, and maybe you can steer the course away from the next one.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > There was a time I would have agreed abuses like these would end badly, but after seeing the effects of the Snowden and Wikileaks revelations about how nihilistic and evil our institutions can be, I doubt the reaction to these or other surveillance realities will come to much. A lot happened in a very short time after the Snowden revelations. HTTPS became expected and Let's encrypt launched. Data providers started encrypting backbone traffic in earnest. Countries that had long condoned US Gov surveillance - or were largely compliant/complicit - began to push back. Did that momentum wind down? Yes. When did it wind down? When most major news orgs lost most of their interest. Snowden dragged the press into reporting on surveillance abuses. Eventually that pressure eased and major news orgs went back to doing what they did before - giving most surveillance abuse a pass. And here we are. The only way this gets better is if the press gives a crap in a meaningful way. Otherwise, invasive snooping will continue expanding into every nook+cranny of our lives. The same way US political corruption became normalized after decades of underreporting, surveillance will become equally entrenched - and for most of the same reasons.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    > A lot happened in a very short time after the Snowden revelations. HTTPS became expected and Let's encrypt launched And yet the proliferation of the attention economy and "growth & engagement" means that in practice, you no longer need to care about breaking HTTPS if you can just tap the analytics/marketing/adtech providers and can get data from 90% of the internet since these trackers litter pretty much every single webpage nowadays. As a bonus, you don't even need to fund or maintain the interception infrastructure, since the adtech provider is doing that for you for free.
akira2501 3y ago
It's the inverse. In a fascist government I'd expect the administration to effectively control the markets and corporations; however, I think this move is the corporations effectively controlling and attempting to supplant the government. It's the perverted idea of "stakeholder capitalism" taken to it's natural conclusion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

I that this is going to end much more badly than people realize. I mean it isn’t the definition of fascism when corporations collude with governments? So isn’t this what we’re seeing here?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

smoldesu 3y ago

I wouldn't say it's characteristically fascist, but your instinct that all this will end poorly is probably right. Ever since the Snowden leaks, we've known that multiple nations built up a digital power disparity that can stockpile exploits and apply them for petty purposes. NSO Group proved that it can be done practically silently, to any phone, with no extra software. Situations like the Canada/India murder probe also recently suggested that supposedly-secure channels can be intercepted anyways. One can only imagine what China or the NSA is fully capable of today. So far we've avoided catastrophe, but it does feel increasingly like the surveillance and internet control lines have already been drawn. I'd hear out anyone who wants to steelman a nicer interpretation of things, though!

clubm8 3y ago
[dead]

ramesh31 3y ago

>I that this is going to end much more badly than people realize. The state of web surveillance today will seem quaint compared to what's coming. Things like Quest 3 and Apple Vision are going to be just the beginning of it, but once everyone is walking around with AR devices, you will have no option of opting out of the point cloud. These companies will have a realtime graph of where and what everyone in public is doing at all times, even those who've never used any services. It's terrifying.

clubm8 3y ago
[dead]

ben_w 3y ago

> it isn’t the definition of fascism when corporations collude with governments (As this question only makes sense to ask if you meant "isn't it" rather than "it isn't", I'm going to make the obvious assumption) That's the first time I've heard this definition for fascism. Normally it's defined as authoritarian nationalism, having a centralised autocratic dictatorial leader, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and propaganda to support the belief in some natural social hierarchy to maintain all that.

Krasnol 3y ago
I have the feeling that "isn’t the definition of" became a hollow phrase meant to raise the drama on the word which follows it.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Benito Mussolini famously equated fascism with corporatism, although the latter term has a somewhat different meaning in Europe from how Americans would typically read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
arrosenberg 3y ago
Eh, Fascism is a specific version of authoritarian nationalism, but you can have the latter without it being the former (e.g. Napoleonic France, the Kaiserreich). We never refer to modern China as fascist and it has all of those qualities. I can't think of an authoritarian nationalist leader who didn't also have a significant measure of control over industry as well, so I think authoritarianism in general usually will involve a high degree of state control.
junofan 3y ago
The corporate state is a pretty big piece of the puzzle you’re missing. I’m generally confused when people today throw around the word “fascist.”

motohagiography 3y ago

There was a time I would have agreed abuses like these would end badly, but after seeing the effects of the Snowden and Wikileaks revelations about how nihilistic and evil our institutions can be, I doubt the reaction to these or other surveillance realities will come to much. The main effect of those disclosures was a rise in populism, but even with the loss of the White House for a term, it had no lasting impact and that populist reaction has been effectively quashed. If you want to effect change, get in earlier when it's still just the crazy fringe talking about it, like 25 years ago, or 25 years from now, and maybe you can steer the course away from the next one.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> There was a time I would have agreed abuses like these would end badly, but after seeing the effects of the Snowden and Wikileaks revelations about how nihilistic and evil our institutions can be, I doubt the reaction to these or other surveillance realities will come to much. A lot happened in a very short time after the Snowden revelations. HTTPS became expected and Let's encrypt launched. Data providers started encrypting backbone traffic in earnest. Countries that had long condoned US Gov surveillance - or were largely compliant/complicit - began to push back. Did that momentum wind down? Yes. When did it wind down? When most major news orgs lost most of their interest. Snowden dragged the press into reporting on surveillance abuses. Eventually that pressure eased and major news orgs went back to doing what they did before - giving most surveillance abuse a pass. And here we are. The only way this gets better is if the press gives a crap in a meaningful way. Otherwise, invasive snooping will continue expanding into every nook+cranny of our lives. The same way US political corruption became normalized after decades of underreporting, surveillance will become equally entrenched - and for most of the same reasons.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > A lot happened in a very short time after the Snowden revelations. HTTPS became expected and Let's encrypt launched And yet the proliferation of the attention economy and "growth & engagement" means that in practice, you no longer need to care about breaking HTTPS if you can just tap the analytics/marketing/adtech providers and can get data from 90% of the internet since these trackers litter pretty much every single webpage nowadays. As a bonus, you don't even need to fund or maintain the interception infrastructure, since the adtech provider is doing that for you for free.

akira2501 3y ago

It's the inverse. In a fascist government I'd expect the administration to effectively control the markets and corporations; however, I think this move is the corporations effectively controlling and attempting to supplant the government. It's the perverted idea of "stakeholder capitalism" taken to it's natural conclusion.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]