4 ms·

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 corpor

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.
- staunton 3y ago
  Why exactly do you think it's absurd? Can you give some arguments or explain how you model what a corporation will or won't do? My original post also didn't give argumens. To explain my model: a large corporation will act in such ways as to maximize profits. So if running a police is profitable (I think it is) and no negative consequences would arise from such an attempt (by assumption), the corporation will do it. There are lots of possibile negative consequences I'm assuming away here. Maybe people will be as opposed to such actions as to stop buying the corporation's products. Maybe governments will prevent the corporation from acting this way. Maybe you think the scenario absurd because I'm "assuming away too much"? If not, of course, this "profit-focused model" of corporations is not perfect (no model is) and my claim might still be wrong even under those assumptions. For example, maybe you think that executives would think it wrong to establish a judicial system although they could do it and profit from it. I think it's reasonable to expect that pressure to be profitable would eventually result in a situation in some related big corporation where executives in favor are in the majority. They might aspire to running this police "ethically", more ethically than any police was ever run, to appease those opposed.

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.
staunton 3y ago
Why exactly do you think it's absurd? Can you give some arguments or explain how you model what a corporation will or won't do? My original post also didn't give argumens. To explain my model: a large corporation will act in such ways as to maximize profits. So if running a police is profitable (I think it is) and no negative consequences would arise from such an attempt (by assumption), the corporation will do it. There are lots of possibile negative consequences I'm assuming away here. Maybe people will be as opposed to such actions as to stop buying the corporation's products. Maybe governments will prevent the corporation from acting this way. Maybe you think the scenario absurd because I'm "assuming away too much"? If not, of course, this "profit-focused model" of corporations is not perfect (no model is) and my claim might still be wrong even under those assumptions. For example, maybe you think that executives would think it wrong to establish a judicial system although they could do it and profit from it. I think it's reasonable to expect that pressure to be profitable would eventually result in a situation in some related big corporation where executives in favor are in the majority. They might aspire to running this police "ethically", more ethically than any police was ever run, to appease those opposed.