4 ms·
In practice, what does that look like? B/c large corporations are constantly doing shady stuff, but in day-to-day life, how does one avoid being in situations w
by abeppu 1y ago
In practice, what does that look like? B/c large corporations are constantly doing shady stuff, but in day-to-day life, how does one avoid being in situations where you're dependent on them, without that avoidance becoming its own large source of problems?
- who provides your utilities?
- who provides your food, medications, other stuff that goes in your body?
- where do you get financial services, insurance, etc?
- do you drive? who made your car? do you ever fly?
For many of these categories there are likely a few examples of local governments, co-ops, or mid-size/small companies offering in some of these categories, but not in a comprehensive way -- i.e. you can get some of your food from a local CSA but likely not your whole diet, you might get much of your medical care from a Direct Primary Care model until you need something that's outside of their capacities, etc.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deberon 1y agoAren’t those all industries that are now highly regulated because they proved themselves to be untrustworthy?
- gjsman-1000 1y agoYes. Why do you think Google is requiring identity verification on Android now? It couldn't possibly be because developers in general have proved themselves untrustworthy as well... right? It couldn't possibly be because users have proven education and countless warnings are ineffective... right? Common sense outside of our HN bubble says that if merely serving me food is regulated, if merely giving me a haircut requires registration and licensing, why is building apps that can steal my data, my money, and my reputation... not regulated? Surely, it's easier for most people to discern the quality of their food, or the quality of a barber, than an app! Yet even for food, and freaking haircuts, we societally don't trust people to understand warnings and use common sense. Either fix tech (even with laws that make HN furious)... or say those laws regarding haircuts are stupid too.
- ndriscoll 1y agoThe laws regarding haircuts are stupid, but nothing actually stops you from going to an unlicensed barber. Likewise no one is going to stop the teenager next door from unlicensed babysitting, and no one is going to stop you from going to them (or to an adult that runs an unlicensed daycare in their home and goes over legal child:adult ratios). One difference here is the tool that you own is built to undermine your authority and instead do whatever Google says. It'd be like if scissors required biometric validation with Great Clips to open "to protect people from unlicensed haircutters".
- gjsman-1000 1y ago> but nothing actually stops you from going to an unlicensed barber In my home state, unlicensed barbering is up to $2,000 per incident. So sure, nothing is stopping you. Just as even now, nothing is stopping you from installing a custom ROM and running your own code, even if you might not be able to run other people's code. > One difference here is the tool that you own is built to undermine your authority and instead do whatever Google says. It'd be like if scissors required biometric validation with Great Clips to open "to protect people from unlicensed haircutters". This is also a thing in the real world; it's licensing to be able to purchase key fob reprogrammers. It's a real pain, even if the tools (illegally) end up on eBay. That's because the risk of a potentially stolen car is seen as extremely high... but an app's potential makes that look quaint.
- ndriscoll 1y agoMost mobile devices do stop you from installing a custom ROM and running your own code (or code from someone else). That kind of thing is what should be illegal. Likewise with e.g. banks requiring people to submit control of the computer they own to the likes of Google even if the device itself in principle can be put under the owner's control. Locking down car repair tools is another obviously abusive practice that primarily benefits the manufacturer and harms the owner, justified through some weak appeal to security, yes.
- walthamstow 1y agoThey didn't see "don't use", they said "don't trust", meaning apply a high degree of skepticism to anything they do or say. It's pretty sensible. You wouldn't advise people the opposite, would you?
- abeppu 1y agoI think this is a distinction without a difference; if you use insulin from Novo Nordisk, what does it mean to "apply a high degree of skepticism to anything they do or say"? Do you have an independent (small?) lab check that it is what it says it is, every time you fill your prescription? If not, isn't a measure of "trust" implicit in and required for use? If the behavior is identical between party A who uses the insulin but somehow doesn't "trust" the producer, and party B who both uses it and "trusts" the producer, what has party A achieved through their mistrust?
- walthamstow 1y agoIt's just general advice, not an ironclad rule on how to live your life. Apply as you see fit.
- atonse 1y agoI actually would riff on this idea more like "Even though corporations are made of of people, don't expect them to have the same attributes of a human being, like empathy or the concept of doing the right thing. Expect that their actions are better explained through abstract concepts like group actions towards a larger goal that's separate from human well-being, like profits and self-survival of the organization at any cost." So even though there exist people at Facebook that have human attributes of empathy and "let's not fuck up half of society" – as a company, they don't behave that way, since it affects more abstract non-human concepts like the survival of the organization, or profit motives that are detached from individuals (like an employee's stock price or yearly bonuses).
- GuinansEyebrows 1y agowe don't place trust in the producer. that's what regulation is for. unfortunately, we can't trust the people above the regulators that often either.