4 ms·

Googol's response is incredibly amusing. "The government can't be trusted with all that info! We have to cut them off! Only we can be trusted with all that info

Googol's response is incredibly amusing. "The government can't be trusted with all that info! We have to cut them off! Only we can be trusted with all that info!"

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JohnFen 3y ago
Most companies seem to be of the opinion that spying is bad except when they're the ones doing it.
- PradeetPatel 3y ago
  Most companies also have a professional and ethical obligation to protect the privacy of their users. With the advent of AI and LLM, it will be interesting to see how the field of ethics evolve in the coming years.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Most companies also have a professional and ethical obligation to protect the privacy of their users. Well, except companies don't tend worry about protecting the privacy of their users from themselves. That was pretty much my point. Regardless, at least in the tech space, companies don't actually seem to take that professional and ethical obligation very seriously. Just look at how common it is for tech companies to sell their user's data or allow targeted ad companies in.
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      It feels as if there's some kind of scale at which this ethical obligation evaporates, and it's likely at that same scale where automated 'ban' rules are implemented where only in exceptional circumstances does any appeal reach the notice of a human. There's probably some crossover at which respecting the privacy of the customer goes from being a positive differentiator in maintaining customer relationships to being an inhibitor to an additional non-trivial revenue stream.
  - flandish 3y ago
    This obligation comes, historically, second to the obligation to reward investors and is only considered in terms of “ratio” and return. They (corps) don’t actually “care” in the way a human with a heart may. They only ever see numbers and a “fine” for instance is just a “cost.”
- flandish 3y ago
  Exactly because spying, to a corporation, is a profit opportunity. They are built to see any opportunity in terms of ROI; spying using data, which is relatively cheap, is a great ROI. Even if it is deplorable.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Theory being google doesn't directly possess the use of force against people.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Split functions enabling close collaboration between Government and private corporate defense contracts to create plausible arms-length deniability? They’d never do that.
hulitu 3y ago
This is political theatre. Goverment is a preferential customer for Google (and others).

Googol's response is incredibly amusing. "The government can't be trusted with all that info! We have to cut them off! Only we can be trusted with all that info!"

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JohnFen 3y ago

Most companies seem to be of the opinion that spying is bad except when they're the ones doing it.

PradeetPatel 3y ago
Most companies also have a professional and ethical obligation to protect the privacy of their users. With the advent of AI and LLM, it will be interesting to see how the field of ethics evolve in the coming years.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Most companies also have a professional and ethical obligation to protect the privacy of their users. Well, except companies don't tend worry about protecting the privacy of their users from themselves. That was pretty much my point. Regardless, at least in the tech space, companies don't actually seem to take that professional and ethical obligation very seriously. Just look at how common it is for tech companies to sell their user's data or allow targeted ad companies in.
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    It feels as if there's some kind of scale at which this ethical obligation evaporates, and it's likely at that same scale where automated 'ban' rules are implemented where only in exceptional circumstances does any appeal reach the notice of a human. There's probably some crossover at which respecting the privacy of the customer goes from being a positive differentiator in maintaining customer relationships to being an inhibitor to an additional non-trivial revenue stream.
- flandish 3y ago
  This obligation comes, historically, second to the obligation to reward investors and is only considered in terms of “ratio” and return. They (corps) don’t actually “care” in the way a human with a heart may. They only ever see numbers and a “fine” for instance is just a “cost.”
flandish 3y ago
Exactly because spying, to a corporation, is a profit opportunity. They are built to see any opportunity in terms of ROI; spying using data, which is relatively cheap, is a great ROI. Even if it is deplorable.

unethical_ban 3y ago

Theory being google doesn't directly possess the use of force against people.

happytiger 3y ago
Split functions enabling close collaboration between Government and private corporate defense contracts to create plausible arms-length deniability? They’d never do that.

hulitu 3y ago

This is political theatre. Goverment is a preferential customer for Google (and others).