3 ms·

Oh! I get it (I think) Corporations can be set up that do most of the governing, and do it the way “they” want. I assume Facebook is the poster boy here, somet

Oh! I get it (I think) Corporations can be set up that do most of the governing, and do it the way “they” want. I assume Facebook is the poster boy here, something something Content moderation. I mean yes - kind of. My take is that most corporations are more interested in making a quick buck than in doing any governing (especially the hard stuff). Governing well is really really hard ( which is why it is so rare!). Outsourcing it even to your captured corporations just makes the whole thing harder surely? I am heartened by Zuckerberg standing up in congress and saying “well you tell me what is and is not allowed” Corporations either don’t want to govern (see above) or they already are the government (see Putin’s Russia) so it’s only extra constitutional if you think the constitution is worth more than the ink. I think despite everything we have shared belief that our western constitutions matter - even Zuckerberg

mindslight 2y ago
I avoided concrete examples because they tend to bring people out of the woodwork who see the goals of that specific exercise of power as a good thing, and then argue against the general criticism. I'd say that pigeonholing corporations as only interested in a "quick buck" is a fallacy. You're essentially focusing on one of their imperatives to write off concerns about another. From what I see corporations very much have an imperative to govern - in the small sense of controlling others, beyond what would otherwise be a disinterested smallest transactional scope. To run with your example, Facebook does not merely present a disinterested linear feed of posts, allow for users setting their own prioritization criteria, nor design their systems to be content-oblivious conduits. Rather Facebook inserts itself into users' relationships in ways that "drive engagement", and proactively polices users' content - either preemptively and summarily enforcing what Facebook perceives as the law, and even differing from the law for internal ideological or public relations purposes. That's essentially small scale governance, with the ability to opt out being directly tied to one's dependence on Facebook. If you're just using it to keep in touch with family, you can do that in other ways. If it's a critical part of promoting your local business, running afoul of its regulations is likely more of a critical problem than say failing a health department inspection.

mindslight 2y ago

I avoided concrete examples because they tend to bring people out of the woodwork who see the goals of that specific exercise of power as a good thing, and then argue against the general criticism. I'd say that pigeonholing corporations as only interested in a "quick buck" is a fallacy. You're essentially focusing on one of their imperatives to write off concerns about another. From what I see corporations very much have an imperative to govern - in the small sense of controlling others, beyond what would otherwise be a disinterested smallest transactional scope. To run with your example, Facebook does not merely present a disinterested linear feed of posts, allow for users setting their own prioritization criteria, nor design their systems to be content-oblivious conduits. Rather Facebook inserts itself into users' relationships in ways that "drive engagement", and proactively polices users' content - either preemptively and summarily enforcing what Facebook perceives as the law, and even differing from the law for internal ideological or public relations purposes. That's essentially small scale governance, with the ability to opt out being directly tied to one's dependence on Facebook. If you're just using it to keep in touch with family, you can do that in other ways. If it's a critical part of promoting your local business, running afoul of its regulations is likely more of a critical problem than say failing a health department inspection.