5 ms·

When you realize that large enough corporations are a form of government, your way of thinking really starts falling to bits... But, the government is the solu

When you realize that large enough corporations are a form of government, your way of thinking really starts falling to bits... But, the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. You can't convince a profit motivated corporation to stop doing something evil as long as it's profitable, so it's the government's job to protect people from corporate governance.

pembrook 3y ago
> the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. I totally agree with this. But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Especially in a "democracy," when the people have implicitly given approval for this by voting in the people who are attempting to consolidate power?
- fsflover 3y ago
  > But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? Yes: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 Facebook collecting people's data even when accounts are deactivated (digiday.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 Facebook test asks users if they're worried a friend is 'becoming an extremist' (cnn.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498
  - hartator 3y ago
    All of this are far from material harms. Compared to what governments can do and are doing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - kibwen 3y ago
      Not only is Facebook a tool of oppressive governments, Facebook's own annual revenue is larger than the GDP of 2/3 of the countries in the world. I don't understand why people have this blind spot when it comes to giving corporations a pass on things that they'd criticize a government for. Most corporations are expressly authoritarian organizations, more so than many governments. Neither Facebook users nor Facebook employees can vote Zuckerberg out.
      - hartator 3y ago
        Still I haven't heard about Facebook killing anyone.
        fsflover 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    The 1st and 3rd link don't seem related to ads. The 4th link isn't loading for me, so I can't tell if it's related to ads. It's not clear to me that the 2nd link will be impacted by this new EU regulation.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      Personalized ads means personalized tracking. The consequences are my links.
      - Thorrez 3y ago
        Removing the ads doesn't remove the personalized tracking AFAIK. The personalized tracking remains AFAIK. And what's the definition of tracking? It's not clear to me if links 1,3,4 are related to personalized tracking. For example, is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking?
        fsflover 3y ago
        The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. Tracking is defined in GDPR as storing personal information without consent or necessity. > is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking? Yes, if I did not give consent to create a profile on me.
        Thorrez 3y ago
        >The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. That's not how I interpreted the conversation. The article says: >a ban imposed by non-EU member Norway on "behavioural advertising" on Facebook and Instagram That seems to be banning tracking for ads, but tracking for timeline suggestions and friend suggestions would still be allowed. And the comment I replied to seemed to be about ads: >>But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this?
- vharuck 3y ago
  >And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Elections and courts. Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. When a company says, "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind. But you can sue the government for damages.
  - chroma 3y ago
    > Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. They can’t go into my home without my permission and search my stuff. And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. If I don’t want to deal with a government, I have to emigrate and renounce my citizenship.
    - mportela 3y ago
      > Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. But they used to, once upon a time, until they were limited from doing so. > And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. Except when you can't. There's no "stop interacting" for a bunch of things in today's society. Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products. If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance.
      - JAlexoid 3y ago
        > Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products > If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance. Use cash, homestead, etc. Yes - you can, in fact, stop any data going to credit rating agencies. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop being of interest to one or another level of government in US, while living in the US. I know it's a radical example, but your statement is false.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    > the government is very restricted in what it can do The government is no more or less restricted than a corporation. > "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind You can, you can sue for breach of contract. If the government tomorrow gets a law passed that they can share or institute a sharing system(like Five Eyes) - you literally can't even sue over anything. > But you can sue the government for damages. That's absolutely not true. In government individuals carry more responsibility than "government". German government can fail to protect your tax data tomorrow and you'll have no way to sue them. You'll be pointed to the individual who'll be blamed and may even go to prison. But you'll get FA. You have way more chances in winning a lawsuit against a corporation, than "a government".(barring some exceptions)
konschubert 3y ago
[flagged]
- ETH_start 3y ago
  To take another example, Apple is worth $3 trillion, but it can't force me to buy an iPhone. A government can absolutely force me to buy one of its products/services, through taxation.
- staunton 3y ago
  We live in an age where the idea of large corporations is still fairly young (much younger than governments) and where governments are much stronger than corporations. However, if Google could get away with running a police, I think it's pretty obvious they would. This judicial system would benefit their commercial interests and ignore any semblance of "right" you might think you deserve. A shadow of that situation is seen when, e.g., (Google/Some other big company) wrongly suspects that you have CSAM, bans all your accounts, and you have no recourse. If the services of that company are vital to you, that's effectively a parallel "judicial system". Large corporations that could get away with it (e.g. East India comp.) have had standing armies and waged war to benefit their commercial interests.
  - pb7 3y ago
    > However, if Google could get away with running a police, I think it's pretty obvious they would. Absurd premise. It might be obvious only to those deluded into thinking that being shown relevant ads in order to use products for free is some sort of tyranny.
    - ygjb 3y ago
      Are you kidding? Have you seen the way that big tech companies use and abuse the legal system to target people, for example, who come into possession of leaked hardware prototypes? Where they could manage private licenses to enforce state powers over matters material to their business interests, you can bet they would in a heart beat.
    - 3y ago
Bad_CRC 3y ago
people talk about qanon a governments in the shadows while they are in the open in the form of mega corporations...
zirgs 3y ago
Google has more money than the government of my country. Someone at google can decide whether to spend like 19B to pay Apple to keep Google the default search engine on iOS. Not a single politician can decide that here. Our government budget is less than 19B. It's scary to think that there are corporations more powerful than governments.

pembrook 3y ago

> the government is the solution to when business gets too much power. I totally agree with this. But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Especially in a "democracy," when the people have implicitly given approval for this by voting in the people who are attempting to consolidate power?

fsflover 3y ago
> But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this? Yes: Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622 Facebook collecting people's data even when accounts are deactivated (digiday.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29817297 Facebook test asks users if they're worried a friend is 'becoming an extremist' (cnn.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27714103 Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498
- hartator 3y ago
  All of this are far from material harms. Compared to what governments can do and are doing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kibwen 3y ago
    Not only is Facebook a tool of oppressive governments, Facebook's own annual revenue is larger than the GDP of 2/3 of the countries in the world. I don't understand why people have this blind spot when it comes to giving corporations a pass on things that they'd criticize a government for. Most corporations are expressly authoritarian organizations, more so than many governments. Neither Facebook users nor Facebook employees can vote Zuckerberg out.
    - hartator 3y ago
      Still I haven't heard about Facebook killing anyone.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38118211
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Thorrez 3y ago
  The 1st and 3rd link don't seem related to ads. The 4th link isn't loading for me, so I can't tell if it's related to ads. It's not clear to me that the 2nd link will be impacted by this new EU regulation.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    Personalized ads means personalized tracking. The consequences are my links.
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      Removing the ads doesn't remove the personalized tracking AFAIK. The personalized tracking remains AFAIK. And what's the definition of tracking? It's not clear to me if links 1,3,4 are related to personalized tracking. For example, is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking?
      - fsflover 3y ago
        The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. Tracking is defined in GDPR as storing personal information without consent or necessity. > is TikTok remembering what videos you wanted for how long and showing you recommendations based on your watch history personalized tracking? Yes, if I did not give consent to create a profile on me.
        Thorrez 3y ago
        >The whole discussion is about banning the tracking, not ads. That's not how I interpreted the conversation. The article says: >a ban imposed by non-EU member Norway on "behavioural advertising" on Facebook and Instagram That seems to be banning tracking for ads, but tracking for timeline suggestions and friend suggestions would still be allowed. And the comment I replied to seemed to be about ads: >>But are personalized Facebook ads really an example of this?
vharuck 3y ago
>And what's the solution when the government gets too much power? Elections and courts. Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. When a company says, "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind. But you can sue the government for damages.
- chroma 3y ago
  > Compared to private entities, the government is very restricted in what it can do. Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. They can’t go into my home without my permission and search my stuff. And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. If I don’t want to deal with a government, I have to emigrate and renounce my citizenship.
  - mportela 3y ago
    > Companies can’t point guns at me and put me in a cage. But they used to, once upon a time, until they were limited from doing so. > And if I don’t want to deal with a company, I can simply stop interacting with them. Except when you can't. There's no "stop interacting" for a bunch of things in today's society. Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products. If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance.
    - JAlexoid 3y ago
      > Google/Facebook tracks you even when you're not using their products > If you want a non-tech example, try stop interacting with Experian, for instance. Use cash, homestead, etc. Yes - you can, in fact, stop any data going to credit rating agencies. There's absolutely nothing you can do to stop being of interest to one or another level of government in US, while living in the US. I know it's a radical example, but your statement is false.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  > the government is very restricted in what it can do The government is no more or less restricted than a corporation. > "We won't share your data with anyone," there's nothing you can do when they change their mind You can, you can sue for breach of contract. If the government tomorrow gets a law passed that they can share or institute a sharing system(like Five Eyes) - you literally can't even sue over anything. > But you can sue the government for damages. That's absolutely not true. In government individuals carry more responsibility than "government". German government can fail to protect your tax data tomorrow and you'll have no way to sue them. You'll be pointed to the individual who'll be blamed and may even go to prison. But you'll get FA. You have way more chances in winning a lawsuit against a corporation, than "a government".(barring some exceptions)

konschubert 3y ago

[flagged]

ETH_start 3y ago
To take another example, Apple is worth $3 trillion, but it can't force me to buy an iPhone. A government can absolutely force me to buy one of its products/services, through taxation.
staunton 3y ago
We live in an age where the idea of large corporations is still fairly young (much younger than governments) and where governments are much stronger than corporations. However, if Google could get away with running a police, I think it's pretty obvious they would. This judicial system would benefit their commercial interests and ignore any semblance of "right" you might think you deserve. A shadow of that situation is seen when, e.g., (Google/Some other big company) wrongly suspects that you have CSAM, bans all your accounts, and you have no recourse. If the services of that company are vital to you, that's effectively a parallel "judicial system". Large corporations that could get away with it (e.g. East India comp.) have had standing armies and waged war to benefit their commercial interests.
- pb7 3y ago
  > However, if Google could get away with running a police, I think it's pretty obvious they would. Absurd premise. It might be obvious only to those deluded into thinking that being shown relevant ads in order to use products for free is some sort of tyranny.
  - ygjb 3y ago
    Are you kidding? Have you seen the way that big tech companies use and abuse the legal system to target people, for example, who come into possession of leaked hardware prototypes? Where they could manage private licenses to enforce state powers over matters material to their business interests, you can bet they would in a heart beat.
  - 3y ago

Bad_CRC 3y ago

people talk about qanon a governments in the shadows while they are in the open in the form of mega corporations...

zirgs 3y ago

Google has more money than the government of my country. Someone at google can decide whether to spend like 19B to pay Apple to keep Google the default search engine on iOS. Not a single politician can decide that here. Our government budget is less than 19B. It's scary to think that there are corporations more powerful than governments.