4 ms·

I watched Julian Assange’s recent talk at the Council of Europe and his testimony on the insanity that the U.S. Government put him through [1]. This makes me co

I watched Julian Assange’s recent talk at the Council of Europe and his testimony on the insanity that the U.S. Government put him through [1]. This makes me come to a different conclusion than the article. > In the digital realm, companies’ control of information, unfettered agency, and power to act have almost overtaken that of governments. Why is it assumed that governments will act better if the power to control information is in their hands? We see this time and time again that the control over information is the most manipulating force a tyrant can wield. Why should we trust government over companies? At least with a publicly traded company we can sell stock faster than we can elect new leaders. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idphGmY3QRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idphGmY3QRM

philosopher1234 2y ago
Because companies make decisions based on who has the most money. 90% of Americans have basically no control of those decisions. And companies interfere with democratic control of the government. Getting things out of the way of democracy seems good to me.
- phyzix5761 2y ago
  Again, how would that be different if government had the power to control information? Its human nature to do things that benefit yourself. At least if its not centralized then you have competition which gives people a choice of where they want their information coming from.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  Who does the government listen to when making decisions? Influence and power follows a power distribution. This is an age old problem.
- refurb 2y ago
  We already know that organizations (whether public or private) eventually devolve into a bureaucracy where the goal is the growth of the organization itself. We see this with the government - how often does the government ever remove laws? Or reduce size? Very rarely. It seems to me that if the goal is to ensure one is not coerced, whether by business or government is not to try and create mechanisms to ensure coercion is only benevolent, but rather to ensure they never have the power to coerce people in the first place.
posterguy 2y ago
i love going to hackernews and reading comments from people who are confused about the difference between democratic franchise and stock ownership
jpeizer 2y ago
For US companies and its citizens, trading stock enough to send a message and make a difference is in the hand of the top X% of people. Those same people don’t have to worry about the same things we do. Their income tier makes them operate fundamentally differently. When you have a team of lawyers on call you can get a lot done quickly. For us companies depend on us deeming it not worth our time and money for a chance to right a wrong. On top of that companies are at times misusing or breaking the law for decades before they are taken to justice. And that justice is more and more just the cost of doing business. I could go on and on, but I would rather face down one tyrant than an army of them. But the way things are going, we might be facing both soon.
AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> Why should we trust government over companies? Democratic governments have some form of accountability to those elected, if none other than periodic elections. If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote. Companies do not have such constraints and operate strictly in self-interest.
- animal_spirits 2y ago
  Does government not act within self interest? The self interest of the company is to provide the information that people want. The self interest of the government is to provide the information that keep the citizens voting for who controls the politicians. And who controls the politicians is a profitable game for big corporations. I understand companies act within their own self interest. But the problem is when we provide government with enormous power it becomes within the self interest of companies to influence government rather than provide value to society.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > self interest of the government is to provide the information that keep the citizens voting for who controls the politicians Now expand your model to one where the government, politicans and citizens aren't monoliths. > who controls the politicians is a profitable game for big corporations It's a pertinent game for everyone. That's the point of democracy. It's still a profitable game in a dictatorship. It's just that while democracy gives a peanut-gallery seat to even the most disinterested citizen, autocracies hoard those seats for the deserving.
    - animal_spirits 2y ago
      How do you end up in a position where governments aren't monoliths? You decentralize the power. Adding more and more state control concentrates power into the monoliths.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

philosopher1234 2y ago

Because companies make decisions based on who has the most money. 90% of Americans have basically no control of those decisions. And companies interfere with democratic control of the government. Getting things out of the way of democracy seems good to me.

phyzix5761 2y ago
Again, how would that be different if government had the power to control information? Its human nature to do things that benefit yourself. At least if its not centralized then you have competition which gives people a choice of where they want their information coming from.
tightbookkeeper 2y ago
Who does the government listen to when making decisions? Influence and power follows a power distribution. This is an age old problem.
refurb 2y ago
We already know that organizations (whether public or private) eventually devolve into a bureaucracy where the goal is the growth of the organization itself. We see this with the government - how often does the government ever remove laws? Or reduce size? Very rarely. It seems to me that if the goal is to ensure one is not coerced, whether by business or government is not to try and create mechanisms to ensure coercion is only benevolent, but rather to ensure they never have the power to coerce people in the first place.

posterguy 2y ago

i love going to hackernews and reading comments from people who are confused about the difference between democratic franchise and stock ownership

jpeizer 2y ago

For US companies and its citizens, trading stock enough to send a message and make a difference is in the hand of the top X% of people. Those same people don’t have to worry about the same things we do. Their income tier makes them operate fundamentally differently. When you have a team of lawyers on call you can get a lot done quickly. For us companies depend on us deeming it not worth our time and money for a chance to right a wrong. On top of that companies are at times misusing or breaking the law for decades before they are taken to justice. And that justice is more and more just the cost of doing business. I could go on and on, but I would rather face down one tyrant than an army of them. But the way things are going, we might be facing both soon.

AdieuToLogic 2y ago

> Why should we trust government over companies? Democratic governments have some form of accountability to those elected, if none other than periodic elections. If you are fortunate enough to live in a country which has free and fair elections, then vote. Companies do not have such constraints and operate strictly in self-interest.

animal_spirits 2y ago
Does government not act within self interest? The self interest of the company is to provide the information that people want. The self interest of the government is to provide the information that keep the citizens voting for who controls the politicians. And who controls the politicians is a profitable game for big corporations. I understand companies act within their own self interest. But the problem is when we provide government with enormous power it becomes within the self interest of companies to influence government rather than provide value to society.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > self interest of the government is to provide the information that keep the citizens voting for who controls the politicians Now expand your model to one where the government, politicans and citizens aren't monoliths. > who controls the politicians is a profitable game for big corporations It's a pertinent game for everyone. That's the point of democracy. It's still a profitable game in a dictatorship. It's just that while democracy gives a peanut-gallery seat to even the most disinterested citizen, autocracies hoard those seats for the deserving.
  - animal_spirits 2y ago
    How do you end up in a position where governments aren't monoliths? You decentralize the power. Adding more and more state control concentrates power into the monoliths.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago