4 ms·

Wrt. privacy here at least, I don't think you need to be moral or ethical per se. It's more a matter of incentives: carrots and sticks. Regardless of what the r

Wrt. privacy here at least, I don't think you need to be moral or ethical per se. It's more a matter of incentives: carrots and sticks. Regardless of what the rules are, corporations will react to them. So if regulation simply maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people the rules will likely end up protecting privacy. So what we see here is that some high paying jobs create a bunch of powerful groups that lobby to keep their current jobs, ie. against stronger regulation.

dylan604 2y ago
You're conveniently leaving out the pressure from TLAs outside of corporate greed and lobbying. There's no way the intelligence community would allow for this vector of gathering information without a fight. Tapping into the take of the social platforms is a huge amount of money and work not needed to spend by the agencies. The greater good for the greater number of people is a nice concept, but I don't think it has been true for much of the US's history. The thing was started with lines like 3/5 of a person included in it while totally ignoring half of the population based on gender.
bilbo0s 2y ago
This is exactly what happens with one exception, these groups don't have to lobby. The politicians know full well that many of the highest paid people in their respective districts are employees in tech. This is true across most of the US. No one, and I mean no one, is interested in becoming a new rust belt city. So politicians act to keep the money flowing and the tax coffers full so that they can then dole out projects. The doling out of projects is a necessary, some would even say foundational, basis of whatever corrupt extraction is able to be carried out.