4 ms·

Trusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp.

by bayindirh 1y ago

demarq 1y ago
One has next to no consequences or oversight
aleph_minus_one 1y ago
Why not distrust both?! :-)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
elzbardico 1y ago
Trusting any of them is a luxury afforded in a short period of history in rich countries. That's why the usual ethos in places like HN of treating any doubt about government actions as lowbrow paranoid conspiracy theory stuff, is so exasperating, for those of us who came from either the former soviet bloc or third world nations.
- 6510 1y ago
  Someone who use to live in a dictatorship told me there is one advantage to living under a dictator: No one believes what is said in the news or the official version of anything.
AlecSchueler 1y ago
How many companies can disappear me to El Salvador?
- giraffe_lady 1y ago
  Well relatedly I think several of the tech billionaires considered this question and decided the answer was "not enough."
- sillyfluke 1y ago
  "US Army appoints Palantir, Meta, OpenAI execs as Lt. Colonels" [0] Well, probably easier than you think. Given that it looks like Palantir is able to control the software and hardware of the new fangled detention centers with immunity, how difficult do you think it is for them to disappear someone without any accountability? It is precisely the blurring of the line between gov and private companies that aid in subverting the rule of law in many instances. [0] https://thegrayzone.com/2025/06/18/palantir-execs-appointed-colonels/ https://thegrayzone.com/2025/06/18/palantir-execs-appointed-...
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    Oh I have no doubt those lines are becoming more and more blurred and that certain big companies in key positions are theoretically beyond accountability. But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" So even now it's between: * A company who, if big enough and in a key position, could theoretically do this And * A government who we know for sure have grabbed multiple people off the streets, within the past month, and have trafficked them out of the country without any due process. So it's still "could maybe do harm" versus "already controls an army of masked men who are undeniably active in doing harm."
    - sillyfluke 1y ago
      >But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" The post you were replying to simply said the behavior of this administration made them care more about this issue, not that they trusted companies more than the government. That statement is not even implied in anyway in the comment you responded to? The fact is whereas in the past it would be expected that the government could regulate the brutal and illegal overreaches of private companies, giving military rank to private companies execs makes that even less likely. The original comment is alluding to a simpler point: A government that gives blank checks to private companies in military and security matters is much worse than one that doesn't.
      - AlecSchueler 1y ago
- const_cast 1y ago
  And how much can the US government censor you versus companies? There's tradeoffs. The government, at least, has to abide by the constitution. Companies don't have to abide by jack shit. That means infinite censorship, searches and seizures, discrimination, you name it. We have SOME protection. Very few, but they're there. But if Uber was charging black people 0.50 cents more on average because their pricing model has some biases baked in, would anyone do anything?
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    Yes, because race is a protected class. If they were charging wealthy people 0.50 more on average because the model showed that they don't care about price that much, they would be fine.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      > Yes, because race is a protected class. No: because Uber doesn't have to tell you how their model works and they probably don't even know.
      - SoftTalker 1y ago
        Doesn't matter. If you can convincingly argue that the effect is discrimination based on race, you have a civil rights claim.
slipperydippery 1y ago
I don’t get drawing a distinction. If a company has it, there’s at least one government out there that either also already has it (some telecom companies just give them data portals, for example) or can any time they choose. Corporate surveillance is government surveillance. Always has been.
twoquestions 1y ago
I 90% agree with you, though Apple did stand up to the FBI some years ago. The US gov't at least is much more restricted on what data it can collect and act on due to the 4th Amendment among other laws, and as another commenter said Apple can't blackbag me to El Salvador. Apple/FBI story in question: https://apnews.com/general-news-c8469b05ac1b4092b7690d36f3409a4a https://apnews.com/general-news-c8469b05ac1b4092b7690d36f340...
- bayindirh 1y ago
  Apple is an exception, and even that is debatable because of the unencrypted backups they store. On the other hand, what Apple did is a tangible thing and is a result. This gives them better optics for now, but there is no law says that they can't change. Their business model is being an "accessible luxury brand with the privacy guarantee of Switzerland as the laws allow". So, as another argument, they have to do this.
sokoloff 1y ago
The government has the direct power to imprison me or seize my property if cross them. It seems strange to not be able to grasp the difference in kind here.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  What happens if your Google account is locked out because you shared your son's pictures to his M.D. because of an ongoing treatment? What happens the same company locks all your book drafts because an algorithm deemed that you're plotting something against someone? Both are real events, BTW.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    I think I missed the part where Google imprisoned someone. The government forces me to do business with them; if I don't pay them tens (and others hundreds) of thousands of dollars every year they will send people with guns to imprison me and eventually other people with guns to seize my property. Me willingly giving Google some data and them capriciously deciding to not always give it back doesn't seem anything like the same to me. (It doesn't mean I like what Google's doing, but they have nowhere near the power of the group that legally owns and uses tanks.)
    - bayindirh 1y ago
      Their life effectively stopped since they are locked out of everything, forever. Not forgetting that the first guy's son's pictures are ended in a CSAM database and he lost his account permanently, and Google didn't give his account back [0]. A company "applied what the law said", and refused that they made a mistake and overreached. Which is generally attributed to governments. So, I you missed the effects of this little binary flag on their life. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
      - sokoloff 1y ago
        > Their life effectively stopped since they are locked out of everything What?! Google locked them out of Google. I'm sure they can still get search, email, and cloud services from many other providers. The government can lock you away in a way that is far more impactful and much closer to "life stopped; locked out of everything" than "you can't have the data you gave us back".

Trusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp.

demarq 1y ago

One has next to no consequences or oversight

aleph_minus_one 1y ago

Why not distrust both?! :-)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

elzbardico 1y ago

Trusting any of them is a luxury afforded in a short period of history in rich countries. That's why the usual ethos in places like HN of treating any doubt about government actions as lowbrow paranoid conspiracy theory stuff, is so exasperating, for those of us who came from either the former soviet bloc or third world nations.

6510 1y ago
Someone who use to live in a dictatorship told me there is one advantage to living under a dictator: No one believes what is said in the news or the official version of anything.

AlecSchueler 1y ago

How many companies can disappear me to El Salvador?

giraffe_lady 1y ago
Well relatedly I think several of the tech billionaires considered this question and decided the answer was "not enough."
sillyfluke 1y ago
"US Army appoints Palantir, Meta, OpenAI execs as Lt. Colonels" [0] Well, probably easier than you think. Given that it looks like Palantir is able to control the software and hardware of the new fangled detention centers with immunity, how difficult do you think it is for them to disappear someone without any accountability? It is precisely the blurring of the line between gov and private companies that aid in subverting the rule of law in many instances. [0] https://thegrayzone.com/2025/06/18/palantir-execs-appointed-colonels/ https://thegrayzone.com/2025/06/18/palantir-execs-appointed-...
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  Oh I have no doubt those lines are becoming more and more blurred and that certain big companies in key positions are theoretically beyond accountability. But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" So even now it's between: * A company who, if big enough and in a key position, could theoretically do this And * A government who we know for sure have grabbed multiple people off the streets, within the past month, and have trafficked them out of the country without any due process. So it's still "could maybe do harm" versus "already controls an army of masked men who are undeniably active in doing harm."
  - sillyfluke 1y ago
    >But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" The post you were replying to simply said the behavior of this administration made them care more about this issue, not that they trusted companies more than the government. That statement is not even implied in anyway in the comment you responded to? The fact is whereas in the past it would be expected that the government could regulate the brutal and illegal overreaches of private companies, giving military rank to private companies execs makes that even less likely. The original comment is alluding to a simpler point: A government that gives blank checks to private companies in military and security matters is much worse than one that doesn't.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
const_cast 1y ago
And how much can the US government censor you versus companies? There's tradeoffs. The government, at least, has to abide by the constitution. Companies don't have to abide by jack shit. That means infinite censorship, searches and seizures, discrimination, you name it. We have SOME protection. Very few, but they're there. But if Uber was charging black people 0.50 cents more on average because their pricing model has some biases baked in, would anyone do anything?
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Yes, because race is a protected class. If they were charging wealthy people 0.50 more on average because the model showed that they don't care about price that much, they would be fine.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > Yes, because race is a protected class. No: because Uber doesn't have to tell you how their model works and they probably don't even know.
    - SoftTalker 1y ago
      Doesn't matter. If you can convincingly argue that the effect is discrimination based on race, you have a civil rights claim.

slipperydippery 1y ago

I don’t get drawing a distinction. If a company has it, there’s at least one government out there that either also already has it (some telecom companies just give them data portals, for example) or can any time they choose. Corporate surveillance is government surveillance. Always has been.

twoquestions 1y ago

I 90% agree with you, though Apple did stand up to the FBI some years ago. The US gov't at least is much more restricted on what data it can collect and act on due to the 4th Amendment among other laws, and as another commenter said Apple can't blackbag me to El Salvador. Apple/FBI story in question: https://apnews.com/general-news-c8469b05ac1b4092b7690d36f3409a4a https://apnews.com/general-news-c8469b05ac1b4092b7690d36f340...

bayindirh 1y ago
Apple is an exception, and even that is debatable because of the unencrypted backups they store. On the other hand, what Apple did is a tangible thing and is a result. This gives them better optics for now, but there is no law says that they can't change. Their business model is being an "accessible luxury brand with the privacy guarantee of Switzerland as the laws allow". So, as another argument, they have to do this.

sokoloff 1y ago

The government has the direct power to imprison me or seize my property if cross them. It seems strange to not be able to grasp the difference in kind here.

bayindirh 1y ago
What happens if your Google account is locked out because you shared your son's pictures to his M.D. because of an ongoing treatment? What happens the same company locks all your book drafts because an algorithm deemed that you're plotting something against someone? Both are real events, BTW.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  I think I missed the part where Google imprisoned someone. The government forces me to do business with them; if I don't pay them tens (and others hundreds) of thousands of dollars every year they will send people with guns to imprison me and eventually other people with guns to seize my property. Me willingly giving Google some data and them capriciously deciding to not always give it back doesn't seem anything like the same to me. (It doesn't mean I like what Google's doing, but they have nowhere near the power of the group that legally owns and uses tanks.)
  - bayindirh 1y ago
    Their life effectively stopped since they are locked out of everything, forever. Not forgetting that the first guy's son's pictures are ended in a CSAM database and he lost his account permanently, and Google didn't give his account back [0]. A company "applied what the law said", and refused that they made a mistake and overreached. Which is generally attributed to governments. So, I you missed the effects of this little binary flag on their life. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      > Their life effectively stopped since they are locked out of everything What?! Google locked them out of Google. I'm sure they can still get search, email, and cloud services from many other providers. The government can lock you away in a way that is far more impactful and much closer to "life stopped; locked out of everything" than "you can't have the data you gave us back".