5 ms·

I guess it's because theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens whereas Facebook is accountable to its shareholders, the citizen can exert some

I guess it's because theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens whereas Facebook is accountable to its shareholders, the citizen can exert some action against Washington via the democratic process, they have no action to take against Facebook other than not participating at all. There's also the question of motive, Facebook exists to make money and there's the fear that the profit motive may outweigh its users privacy. The government can and has defended its actions in the context of keeping people safe. I'm not defending any actions by Facebook or government, just trying to point out the differences. What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment to keep expansive government in check, at what point does government become a threat?

fotbr 14y ago
There is an attitude common amongst the more radical 2nd amendment supporters: that trying to keep the government in check is a lost cause, and they're merely biding their time until "the sheeple" finally open their eyes and get fed up, at which time they can have their uprising. Like most views espoused by radicals on any subject, it is a load of crap that left rational thinking behind a long time ago, but it does help explain why you see an inconsistency in behavior.
seiji 14y ago
Facebook is accountable to its shareholders Check their ownership structure and you may want to reword that.
- mtgx 14y ago
  Zuckerberg still owns over 50% of Facebook, right?
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Which would make him a shareholder, ergo it is accountable to him.
    - seiji 14y ago
      That's like saying the chinese military is accountable to the chinese people since the government is full of chinese citizens. (on second read--I can't tell if you're saying it's "accountable to shareholders" since the single majority shareholder is, indeed, a shareholder -- or -- if you're just agreeing with me. Anyway, it's a fun analogy.)
mtgx 14y ago
I agree about the 2nd amendment guys. If they say they care about the 2nd amendment because they want to be able to stop the government if it becomes too oppressive, then the 4th amendment should be the first thing they should defend, because the 1st and 4th amendment are the first things an oppressive US government would try to bypass. So these amendments are the first lines of defense, and they need to fight for them as hard as possible to protect them, if they really want to stop the government from becoming oppressive. But considering gun owners are usually Republicans, and Republicans are also usually the first to suppress the 4th amendment, there is some inconsistency there.
JoshTriplett 14y ago
> theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens That's a big "theoretically". Personally, Facebook bothers me much less, because I can and do opt out of Facebook
gyardley 14y ago
People are often inconsistent. I suspect it's because weakening of the second amendment affects the public in an obvious and visible way while weakening the fourth amendment doesn't affect them immediately and is usually framed as necessary for defending them from outside attackers. I suppose it's better for someone to defend one important aspect of the Constitution than none of them. An ardent gun-rights advocate who shrugs at this isn't much different from someone who is against unreasonable government surveillance but supports strong gun control measures.
- mjw 14y ago
  Perhaps the US constitution isn't the be-all-and-end-all of political thought, and people have valid disagreements on which parts of it are important?
yummyfajitas 14y ago
What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Because many defenders of the second amendment aren't actually defenders of personal freedom, but are merely defenders of their cultural expressions (one of which is gun ownership). See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom. Or the people who defend the free speech of the New York Times Corp., but not the free speech of Citizens United, Inc. Most people are merely supporting their tribe and don't actually buy into the principles they appeal to when making arguments.
- shardling 14y ago
  >See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom While I agree with your general point about tribalism, this particular example is pretty silly -- you have to pretend to take the idiom literally for it to make sense.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly"? I realize that most liberals consider it an anathema, but that's the point. People appeal to the principle in spite of disagreeing with it in basically all cases except gay sex and abortion.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      How is paying $2/hr for the cleaning of the room harming no one? It is more complicated than direct and immediate harm, but (if you subscribe to modern economic models) it does indeed result in economic harm.
      - natrius 14y ago
credo 14y ago
>> What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment to keep expansive government in check That is the party-line. However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality. The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war - but that was armed rebellion by the state "governments" and it was a war to defend the right to slavery. (yes, I know that some people describe it as the "war of northern aggression") MLK talked about the long arc of history bending towards justice and that has undoubtedly been true in America. Today, native Americans cannot be massacred or driven into reservations, blacks cannot be enslaved to work in plantations, women have the right to vote and many more rights that were denied to them in previous centuries, gays have the right to not be arrested for being gay, Japanese-Americans have the right to not be arrested solely based on their ethnicity etc. In all of these cases, freedom has expanded far beyond what America had in previous centuries. However, I think it is safe to assert that the 2nd amendment was absolutely irrelevant (in any positive way) in the expansion of any of these freedoms.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Guns were, however, used on a number of occasions against state governments and terrorist groups backed by state governments. The Battle of Hayes Pond (1958) is one notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond You should actually read a little history. You'll discover that gun ownership played a significant role in blacks gaining civil rights in the past century - most early gun control efforts were actually an attempt to disarm them.
- baddox 14y ago
  > The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war... Like many people, you are missing the role that personal firearms play in resisting tyranny. No one is claiming that a firearm can do anything against artillery, tanks, and fighter jets (much less chemical and nuclear weapons). The armed populace obviously cannot hope to mount an offensive coup. The point is that an armed populace cannot be occupied by a tyrannical government. Look at how difficult the occupation of Iraq has proved, and imagine how much more difficult it would be in a country with ten times the population, 20 times the land area, and nearly 30 times the number of small arms.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
baddox 14y ago
Why do you suppose that special interest groups lobby the federal government, rather than lobbying large corporations? It has nothing to do with accountability to citizens.
burntsushi 14y ago
> I guess it's because theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens whereas Facebook is accountable to its shareholders This is a common characterization of the difference between business accountability and government accountability, and I think it is deeply flawed. There are differences between accountability for sure, but to simplify Facebook's accountability to "its shareholders" is just too misleading. Believe it or not, Facebook is also very much accountable to its users. If users leave Facebook, it loses power and money. Facebook, in order to exist, must remain accountable to its users by keeping them happy enough to stay. To reiterate, I acknowledge that the power structures between governments and businesses are different, but one cannot and should not ignore the fact businesses are accountable to the people too.

fotbr 14y ago

There is an attitude common amongst the more radical 2nd amendment supporters: that trying to keep the government in check is a lost cause, and they're merely biding their time until "the sheeple" finally open their eyes and get fed up, at which time they can have their uprising. Like most views espoused by radicals on any subject, it is a load of crap that left rational thinking behind a long time ago, but it does help explain why you see an inconsistency in behavior.

seiji 14y ago

Facebook is accountable to its shareholders Check their ownership structure and you may want to reword that.

mtgx 14y ago
Zuckerberg still owns over 50% of Facebook, right?
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Which would make him a shareholder, ergo it is accountable to him.
  - seiji 14y ago
    That's like saying the chinese military is accountable to the chinese people since the government is full of chinese citizens. (on second read--I can't tell if you're saying it's "accountable to shareholders" since the single majority shareholder is, indeed, a shareholder -- or -- if you're just agreeing with me. Anyway, it's a fun analogy.)

mtgx 14y ago

I agree about the 2nd amendment guys. If they say they care about the 2nd amendment because they want to be able to stop the government if it becomes too oppressive, then the 4th amendment should be the first thing they should defend, because the 1st and 4th amendment are the first things an oppressive US government would try to bypass. So these amendments are the first lines of defense, and they need to fight for them as hard as possible to protect them, if they really want to stop the government from becoming oppressive. But considering gun owners are usually Republicans, and Republicans are also usually the first to suppress the 4th amendment, there is some inconsistency there.

JoshTriplett 14y ago

> theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens That's a big "theoretically". Personally, Facebook bothers me much less, because I can and do opt out of Facebook

gyardley 14y ago

People are often inconsistent. I suspect it's because weakening of the second amendment affects the public in an obvious and visible way while weakening the fourth amendment doesn't affect them immediately and is usually framed as necessary for defending them from outside attackers. I suppose it's better for someone to defend one important aspect of the Constitution than none of them. An ardent gun-rights advocate who shrugs at this isn't much different from someone who is against unreasonable government surveillance but supports strong gun control measures.

mjw 14y ago
Perhaps the US constitution isn't the be-all-and-end-all of political thought, and people have valid disagreements on which parts of it are important?

yummyfajitas 14y ago

What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Because many defenders of the second amendment aren't actually defenders of personal freedom, but are merely defenders of their cultural expressions (one of which is gun ownership). See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom. Or the people who defend the free speech of the New York Times Corp., but not the free speech of Citizens United, Inc. Most people are merely supporting their tribe and don't actually buy into the principles they appeal to when making arguments.

shardling 14y ago
>See also the people who passionately defend the right of two consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom, but then object if I want to pay someone $2 an hour to clean the bedroom While I agree with your general point about tribalism, this particular example is pretty silly -- you have to pretend to take the idiom literally for it to make sense.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Why is the principle of allowing people to engage in private acts that harm no one else "silly"? I realize that most liberals consider it an anathema, but that's the point. People appeal to the principle in spite of disagreeing with it in basically all cases except gay sex and abortion.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    How is paying $2/hr for the cleaning of the room harming no one? It is more complicated than direct and immediate harm, but (if you subscribe to modern economic models) it does indeed result in economic harm.
    - natrius 14y ago

credo 14y ago

>> What I'm more interested in is why the most passionate defenders of the second amendment never seem interested in government power grabs like this. Isn't the reason for the 2nd amendment to keep expansive government in check That is the party-line. However, if you study American history, you'll see that this 2nd amendment propaganda doesn't square up with reality. The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war - but that was armed rebellion by the state "governments" and it was a war to defend the right to slavery. (yes, I know that some people describe it as the "war of northern aggression") MLK talked about the long arc of history bending towards justice and that has undoubtedly been true in America. Today, native Americans cannot be massacred or driven into reservations, blacks cannot be enslaved to work in plantations, women have the right to vote and many more rights that were denied to them in previous centuries, gays have the right to not be arrested for being gay, Japanese-Americans have the right to not be arrested solely based on their ethnicity etc. In all of these cases, freedom has expanded far beyond what America had in previous centuries. However, I think it is safe to assert that the 2nd amendment was absolutely irrelevant (in any positive way) in the expansion of any of these freedoms.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Guns were, however, used on a number of occasions against state governments and terrorist groups backed by state governments. The Battle of Hayes Pond (1958) is one notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond You should actually read a little history. You'll discover that gun ownership played a significant role in blacks gaining civil rights in the past century - most early gun control efforts were actually an attempt to disarm them.
baddox 14y ago
> The only times guns were seriously used in an anti-federal-government uprising was during the civil war... Like many people, you are missing the role that personal firearms play in resisting tyranny. No one is claiming that a firearm can do anything against artillery, tanks, and fighter jets (much less chemical and nuclear weapons). The armed populace obviously cannot hope to mount an offensive coup. The point is that an armed populace cannot be occupied by a tyrannical government. Look at how difficult the occupation of Iraq has proved, and imagine how much more difficult it would be in a country with ten times the population, 20 times the land area, and nearly 30 times the number of small arms.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

baddox 14y ago

Why do you suppose that special interest groups lobby the federal government, rather than lobbying large corporations? It has nothing to do with accountability to citizens.

burntsushi 14y ago

> I guess it's because theoretically the government is accountable to its citizens whereas Facebook is accountable to its shareholders This is a common characterization of the difference between business accountability and government accountability, and I think it is deeply flawed. There are differences between accountability for sure, but to simplify Facebook's accountability to "its shareholders" is just too misleading. Believe it or not, Facebook is also very much accountable to its users. If users leave Facebook, it loses power and money. Facebook, in order to exist, must remain accountable to its users by keeping them happy enough to stay. To reiterate, I acknowledge that the power structures between governments and businesses are different, but one cannot and should not ignore the fact businesses are accountable to the people too.