4 ms·

> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data s

by rdtsc 2y ago

> The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data so they can make money off you. That's not so scary to me. Governments want to put you in jail (or freeze your bank account, etc) if you get out of line. It depends what government and what corporations. If it's a healthy functionally representative government then it's rules and laws can be to a certain extent controlled by the public. It may be harder to influence corporations. If a bank wants to close your account, or Visa stops accepting your payments or airlines don't let you fly, you can't complain, they'll just "well tough luck, it's our bank, our airplanes, our payment system, go create your own if you disagree". So I agree with you that this should be a worrying thing for the U.K. citizens, they should ask their government why the heck does it want all that data and maybe it should stop. > Yes, corporations and the government are often in cahoots here - but even then we should be talking about how wrong it is for governments to be buying/taking/demanding data from corporations - keeping the focus squarely on the government. Very much in cahoots. They hide behind each others backs, too. "(Apple): Sorry, government made us do it, our hands are tied". "(Govt): Sorry, _we_ are not spying on you. We just bought some data from Google or Apple".

bad_user 2y ago
In a democracy, the government is an outcome of elections, however they represent the majority and you may not be in that majority. This is why you can't talk about democracy without a strong culture focusing on the individual's rights, aka liberalism, otherwise all you have is a tyranny of the majority. You're also deeply wrong. The fundamental difference between a state and corporations is that the state has a monopoly on violence and anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state. For example, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, all monopolies are granted by the state in one way or another. And the differences should be obvious, given the state can deprive you of freedom, it can starve you, it can inflict physical violence, and can even kill you. Corporations can't do this, unless the state commands it, obviously. > It may be harder to influence corporations. Actually, depriving Apple of the money you'd pay for an iPhone has more impact that your democratic vote. And even if you disagree with this, consider that you can vote for politicians promising to regulate Apple. And switching to Android or Windows has a lower cost than switching countries (and yes, that's an oligopoly, but that's because your state granted it via IP laws).
- rdtsc 2y ago
  > For example, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, all monopolies are granted by the state in one way or another. I don't see that. They could just not care. As I said it depends on what state you mean. Are you thinking a particular one? Because the state could be busy or care about other stuff than handling monopolies. Maybe there is a war going on, political in-fighting, military coup, etc. If a company buys every other competitor and is now the sole electric toaster maker some governments could just care less. > This is why you can't talk about democracy without a strong culture focusing on the individual's rights, aka liberalism, otherwise all you have is a tyranny of the majority. Of course. So it depends. Again, are you talking about a particular instance or in general. You can certainly talk about anything you want. The "culture of individual's rights" may not last long if a large majority of the citizens decided to either directly vote against or elect officials who are against it. Can the citizens effectively influence the government to change or can't? > You're also deeply wrong. The fundamental difference between a state and corporations is that the state has a monopoly on violence and anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state. I don't think you've shown the depth of wrongness here. It would take a bit more convincing. > anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state So, there is a way to the citizens to influence the state? And the state then has to influence or control the company, and then company would change its behavior, because it's forced to. Ok, then why the extra level of indirection, and not just influence the government to not harvest private citizens data and stop there? > Actually, depriving Apple of the money you'd pay for an iPhone has more impact that your democratic vote. So someone has to already be wealthy enough to buy iPhones to affect some change. Sure, that could work in some countries/corporations it might not work in others. In a healthier environment citizens should aim to influence their government instead. In the model you're proposing citizens try to influence a corporation by boycotting products, that in turn would indirectly influence the government, so it can then again influence the laws, which influence the corporations? That seems like a less healthy and more convoluted dysfunctional scenario. Certainly possible, one may argue that's what's happening in US or Western Europe, but one can image a better a different scenario than that.
- kennysoona 2y ago

by rdtsc 2y ago

bad_user 2y ago

In a democracy, the government is an outcome of elections, however they represent the majority and you may not be in that majority. This is why you can't talk about democracy without a strong culture focusing on the individual's rights, aka liberalism, otherwise all you have is a tyranny of the majority. You're also deeply wrong. The fundamental difference between a state and corporations is that the state has a monopoly on violence and anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state. For example, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, all monopolies are granted by the state in one way or another. And the differences should be obvious, given the state can deprive you of freedom, it can starve you, it can inflict physical violence, and can even kill you. Corporations can't do this, unless the state commands it, obviously. > It may be harder to influence corporations. Actually, depriving Apple of the money you'd pay for an iPhone has more impact that your democratic vote. And even if you disagree with this, consider that you can vote for politicians promising to regulate Apple. And switching to Android or Windows has a lower cost than switching countries (and yes, that's an oligopoly, but that's because your state granted it via IP laws).

rdtsc 2y ago
> For example, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, all monopolies are granted by the state in one way or another. I don't see that. They could just not care. As I said it depends on what state you mean. Are you thinking a particular one? Because the state could be busy or care about other stuff than handling monopolies. Maybe there is a war going on, political in-fighting, military coup, etc. If a company buys every other competitor and is now the sole electric toaster maker some governments could just care less. > This is why you can't talk about democracy without a strong culture focusing on the individual's rights, aka liberalism, otherwise all you have is a tyranny of the majority. Of course. So it depends. Again, are you talking about a particular instance or in general. You can certainly talk about anything you want. The "culture of individual's rights" may not last long if a large majority of the citizens decided to either directly vote against or elect officials who are against it. Can the citizens effectively influence the government to change or can't? > You're also deeply wrong. The fundamental difference between a state and corporations is that the state has a monopoly on violence and anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state. I don't think you've shown the depth of wrongness here. It would take a bit more convincing. > anything that a corporation is doing, and that harms individuals, can only happen with the complicity of the state So, there is a way to the citizens to influence the state? And the state then has to influence or control the company, and then company would change its behavior, because it's forced to. Ok, then why the extra level of indirection, and not just influence the government to not harvest private citizens data and stop there? > Actually, depriving Apple of the money you'd pay for an iPhone has more impact that your democratic vote. So someone has to already be wealthy enough to buy iPhones to affect some change. Sure, that could work in some countries/corporations it might not work in others. In a healthier environment citizens should aim to influence their government instead. In the model you're proposing citizens try to influence a corporation by boycotting products, that in turn would indirectly influence the government, so it can then again influence the laws, which influence the corporations? That seems like a less healthy and more convoluted dysfunctional scenario. Certainly possible, one may argue that's what's happening in US or Western Europe, but one can image a better a different scenario than that.
kennysoona 2y ago