4 ms·

I think some of that is just Larry Ellison

by Georgelemental 5mo ago

jasonvorhe 5mo ago
And Google, Meta, etc. None of the big companies habe your interests at heart.
- jstummbillig 5mo ago
  What a strange thing to say. Why would they? Do you have their interest at heart? Do you have the average persons interest at heart? Again: Why would you? That's by definition not how interests work. And that is roughly fine (albeit a kinder universe would be nice).
  - RC_ITR 5mo ago
    >Why would you? Because the fundamental building block of society (which we are losing rapidly) is some amount of care for your fellow person. Your comment is a great example of how we Prisoner's Dilemma'ed ourselves into a world of isolation and decaying institutions.
  - saghm 5mo ago
    Even if I have no one's best interest but my own at heart, I can't do anywhere close to as much damage to society at large as a trillion dollar corporation. Also, corporations aren't people, and it's silly to compare individuals to massive organizations.
    - jstummbillig 5mo ago
      That is not the point though? I am not saying that there are no issues with big corps and their interests. Theirs not being yours is just not one of them.
      - saghm 5mo ago
        "An entity with a larger pool of cash than many countries and mutual influence with the government, which everyone agrees should have our best interests" not having our best interest is definitely something I'd consider an interest.
        jstummbillig 5mo ago
        Why? Them not having your best interests at heart does not make them an adversary. Just like you not having the best interests of your grocer or work place or most other humans on the planet at heart does not make you an adversary.
  - afavour 5mo ago
    I'd argue that society ensures (or should ensure) that we, collectively, do have the average person's interest at heart. The problem is when billionaires like these effectively decide to opt out of society. Stop paying taxes, bend the political system to their will. Even if you think of them as the most selfish people possible, billionaires ought to have the average person's interest at heart. Because once the country is full of average people who are unhappy with their lives it typically doesn't work out well for those with power.
  - antonvs 5mo ago
    > That's by definition not how interests work. It can be. For example, see "enlightened self interest" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest), a concept that the companies in question seem to discard in favor of short-term profits. The Golden Rule "do unto others" is an example of this concept, and it answers your question "why would you?" > And that is roughly fine (albeit a kinder universe would be nice). You're confusing the status quo with what must be. It's possible for people to have a sane interpretation of self-interest. We should do a better job of reeducating and/or removing from society the people who don't seem capable of that.
giancarlostoro 5mo ago
There's definitely people who blindly praise and romanticize China and ignore how dystopian all the monitoring systems there are, there is essentially no privacy. Even chat apps are infiltrated or Chinese run in some way, shape, or form.
- pasquinelli 5mo ago
  usually people romanticize china when they're comparing it to the united states. are chat apps in the US not infiltrated or run by america?
  - JuniperMesos 5mo ago
    Signal genuinely isn't, or other end-to-end encryption chat apps. But yeah, WhatsApp and Discord and others are run by American companies that follow US law.
- squidsoup 5mo ago
  While that’s true, the Chinese government does also seem to be motivated to keep the cost of housing and food low for its citizens, and provide services and facilities for the public good.
  - vondur 5mo ago
    Ha, you really believe that? You can't live in area without the permission of the Government. The current Chinese regime seems to be really going kinda crazy with their new leader. They've lost their more practical leadership since the new guy has consolidated power.
    - giancarlostoro 5mo ago
      Not to mention buildings last maybe 25 years before they start falling apart. Compared to 70 in the US.
    - squidsoup 5mo ago
TwoNineA 5mo ago
You mean ... One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison?
- analognoise 5mo ago
  The asshole rot in tech goes much deeper than just Larry Ellison.
  - antonvs 5mo ago
    Perhaps, but there's only One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
epistasis 5mo ago
Some, but definitely not just him. Bezos' recent CNBC interview was enough of a kick in the nuts to finally get me to migrate off of AWS last weekend.

I think some of that is just Larry Ellison

jasonvorhe 5mo ago

And Google, Meta, etc. None of the big companies habe your interests at heart.

jstummbillig 5mo ago
What a strange thing to say. Why would they? Do you have their interest at heart? Do you have the average persons interest at heart? Again: Why would you? That's by definition not how interests work. And that is roughly fine (albeit a kinder universe would be nice).
- RC_ITR 5mo ago
  >Why would you? Because the fundamental building block of society (which we are losing rapidly) is some amount of care for your fellow person. Your comment is a great example of how we Prisoner's Dilemma'ed ourselves into a world of isolation and decaying institutions.
- saghm 5mo ago
  Even if I have no one's best interest but my own at heart, I can't do anywhere close to as much damage to society at large as a trillion dollar corporation. Also, corporations aren't people, and it's silly to compare individuals to massive organizations.
  - jstummbillig 5mo ago
    That is not the point though? I am not saying that there are no issues with big corps and their interests. Theirs not being yours is just not one of them.
    - saghm 5mo ago
      "An entity with a larger pool of cash than many countries and mutual influence with the government, which everyone agrees should have our best interests" not having our best interest is definitely something I'd consider an interest.
      - jstummbillig 5mo ago
        Why? Them not having your best interests at heart does not make them an adversary. Just like you not having the best interests of your grocer or work place or most other humans on the planet at heart does not make you an adversary.
- afavour 5mo ago
  I'd argue that society ensures (or should ensure) that we, collectively, do have the average person's interest at heart. The problem is when billionaires like these effectively decide to opt out of society. Stop paying taxes, bend the political system to their will. Even if you think of them as the most selfish people possible, billionaires ought to have the average person's interest at heart. Because once the country is full of average people who are unhappy with their lives it typically doesn't work out well for those with power.
- antonvs 5mo ago
  > That's by definition not how interests work. It can be. For example, see "enlightened self interest" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest), a concept that the companies in question seem to discard in favor of short-term profits. The Golden Rule "do unto others" is an example of this concept, and it answers your question "why would you?" > And that is roughly fine (albeit a kinder universe would be nice). You're confusing the status quo with what must be. It's possible for people to have a sane interpretation of self-interest. We should do a better job of reeducating and/or removing from society the people who don't seem capable of that.

giancarlostoro 5mo ago

There's definitely people who blindly praise and romanticize China and ignore how dystopian all the monitoring systems there are, there is essentially no privacy. Even chat apps are infiltrated or Chinese run in some way, shape, or form.

pasquinelli 5mo ago
usually people romanticize china when they're comparing it to the united states. are chat apps in the US not infiltrated or run by america?
- JuniperMesos 5mo ago
  Signal genuinely isn't, or other end-to-end encryption chat apps. But yeah, WhatsApp and Discord and others are run by American companies that follow US law.
squidsoup 5mo ago
While that’s true, the Chinese government does also seem to be motivated to keep the cost of housing and food low for its citizens, and provide services and facilities for the public good.
- vondur 5mo ago
  Ha, you really believe that? You can't live in area without the permission of the Government. The current Chinese regime seems to be really going kinda crazy with their new leader. They've lost their more practical leadership since the new guy has consolidated power.
  - giancarlostoro 5mo ago
    Not to mention buildings last maybe 25 years before they start falling apart. Compared to 70 in the US.
  - squidsoup 5mo ago

TwoNineA 5mo ago

You mean ... One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison?

analognoise 5mo ago
The asshole rot in tech goes much deeper than just Larry Ellison.
- antonvs 5mo ago
  Perhaps, but there's only One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

epistasis 5mo ago

Some, but definitely not just him. Bezos' recent CNBC interview was enough of a kick in the nuts to finally get me to migrate off of AWS last weekend.