3 ms·

The problem with AI isn't (p)doom it's the 99% probability that the people at companies like Dropbox will continue to treat customers like human chattel. They'

by 23B1 3y ago

The problem with AI isn't (p)doom it's the 99% probability that the people at companies like Dropbox will continue to treat customers like human chattel. They'd enslave you and charge you a subscription for oxygen if they could – and insist it was a feature.

fnimick 3y ago
Any for-profit company would. In fact, if they are public, they are legally required to maximize profit without any other consideration.
- sgift 3y ago
  No, they don't. That myth cannot die fast enough. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder-value-purpose-corporation https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... > There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger or imminent hostile takeover, do they have to maximize shareholder value.
mikewarot 3y ago
> people at companies like Dropbox will continue to treat customers like human chattel. The key question is: Who is the actual customer? That drives everything else. The FAANG's customer isn't the "users", but rather its advertisers, et al. Anyone who will pay for the data their "users" generate. This is the Faustian bargain we all made when we decided that free stuff from the internet was a good idea. Someone else pays, and they get our data in exchange for that payment. The same data is likely sold as many times as they can do so, of course.
- sgift 3y ago
  Even if we accept that we made this bargain: I pay for Dropbox. If they want to use my data for their shit they better make it a) optional and b) make me pay less. Also, I have a feeling this could be another case of the EU having to fine an US company, which means half of HN will cry again how the EU is always so mean to US companies. Or maybe this time HN acknowledges that the reason could be that the companies trying to use private data without permission are often US companies.
- 23B1 3y ago
  > when we decided that free stuff from the internet was a good idea I agree it's a faustian bargain but I don't think we had much agency here. Our society now depends on these services to a high degree, which is why these companies are (and probably should) face increased scrutiny and regulation.

by 23B1 3y ago

fnimick 3y ago

Any for-profit company would. In fact, if they are public, they are legally required to maximize profit without any other consideration.

sgift 3y ago
No, they don't. That myth cannot die fast enough. https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder-value-purpose-corporation https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/shareholder... > There are a lot of misconceptions about maximizing shareholder value, even among economists. But talk to a legal scholar or a corporate lawyer: a CEO or board is not legally obliged to maximize shareholder value. They need to maximize the value of the corporation and act in its best interest. Only when there is a change in legal control, such as a merger or imminent hostile takeover, do they have to maximize shareholder value.

mikewarot 3y ago

> people at companies like Dropbox will continue to treat customers like human chattel. The key question is: Who is the actual customer? That drives everything else. The FAANG's customer isn't the "users", but rather its advertisers, et al. Anyone who will pay for the data their "users" generate. This is the Faustian bargain we all made when we decided that free stuff from the internet was a good idea. Someone else pays, and they get our data in exchange for that payment. The same data is likely sold as many times as they can do so, of course.

sgift 3y ago
Even if we accept that we made this bargain: I pay for Dropbox. If they want to use my data for their shit they better make it a) optional and b) make me pay less. Also, I have a feeling this could be another case of the EU having to fine an US company, which means half of HN will cry again how the EU is always so mean to US companies. Or maybe this time HN acknowledges that the reason could be that the companies trying to use private data without permission are often US companies.
23B1 3y ago
> when we decided that free stuff from the internet was a good idea I agree it's a faustian bargain but I don't think we had much agency here. Our society now depends on these services to a high degree, which is why these companies are (and probably should) face increased scrutiny and regulation.