5 ms·

"By now it should be obvious that the big tech companies are not our friends. They're more like the government than they are like you and me." In Europe (at le

by amirmc 13y ago

"By now it should be obvious that the big tech companies are not our friends. They're more like the government than they are like you and me." In Europe (at least the UK), it's usually the big companies that are viewed with more suspicion than the governments. I don't think anyone felt that BigCo was ever 'like you and me'.

pron 13y ago
I'd say everywhere in the western world other than the US. People often forget that the whole purpose of government is to protect us from that organization of society that naturally arose in the West (and east Asia, too) before central governments, namely feudalism. When no central authority regulates power, power would always become concentrated in the hands of the few, who would inevitably subjugate the many through economic bonds. While, like many, I am appalled at the NSA's supposed massive-scale surveillance, I fear surveillance by corporations like Google much more. The fact that people share their most private information with Google voluntarily actually makes it worse. If you want to know where real power lies, look for power that is not only feared, but loved (say, your mother :)). Many people have referred to the book 1984 in the past week, but they've all missed one crucial point: Big Brother is not feared; he is loved. At the end of the book, Winston voluntarily subjugates himself to Big Brother. He loves Big Brother. As long as the NSA has some form of oversight, however dysfunctional -- as long as government is at least suspect -- we'll be fine. But the much bigger danger is Google itself, the power that people love; that they voluntarily subjugate themselves to. It seems that Americans, perhaps because their government was formed not from feudalism, but as a rebellion against a foreign central government -- are very much aware of the dangers of government, but are blind to the much bigger threat of feudalism.
- spindritf 13y ago
  > the whole purpose of government is to protect us from that organization of society that naturally arose in the West (and east Asia, too) before central governments, namely feudalism Feudal lords were the government. A centralised one, too, with a king or some other emperor at the top. Democratic governments are not protecting you from the feudal ones any more than your ISP protects you from the telephone company.
  - pron 13y ago
    In some cases there was a king at the top, and in some there wasn't. But in any case, the king's powers were far from what we call "government" today. His authority was limited to whatever form of self-interested allegiance he could get from his lords. A centralized government tries to have a monopoly on power, in the sense that it can limit the power any citizen, or a group of citizens, can have. Of course, some governments may choose to limit power selectively, and allow some individuals, or small groups, obtain almost as much power as feudal lords. But it's the democratic government's duty to protect us from feudal lords -- in fact it's the only weapon we have against feudalism -- so there's a fine balance to strike between a government that's despotic and one that allows feudalism to flourish.
- mjn 13y ago
  In addition to feudalism, significant parts of the world were also de-facto ruled by European trading companies, who were stronger than the local governments, and not meaningfully restrained by their home governments. Stuff like the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Feudal lords subjugated the many through threats of violence, not "economic bonds". "Economic bonds" is just another term for "made the best offer" - that's very far from what feudal lords did.
  - pron 13y ago
    It was through economic bonds. Not to get into too much detail, but the lower ranks of feudal nobility were "lords of manors" (with higher ranks being lords of lords). The manor system (manorialism[1]) was the economic foundation of feudal society. Back when I studied history (many years ago), I read one the most fascinating history papers I've ever read: The Rise of Dependent Cultivation and Seignorial Institutions by Marc Bloch[2] (I couldn't find a free version online). There was little, if any, violence directed at peasants - certainly not one meant to get them to work. The entire system was founded on the fact that peasants had little choice: they didn't own the land, and it was hard for them to relocate to other manors. Systems built around direct coercion, with the threat of violence, are rarely stable. Successful exploitation is one whose targets either hardly feel or one that's not bad enough to get them to rebel. The way these systems often collapse is that over time, the exploiters feel more confident to exploit even more, until they reach a breaking point at which a rebellion occurs. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism [2]: http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781139054423&cid=CBO9781139054423A009 http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/ch...
    - mjn 13y ago
      It does vary based on the region/era we're talking about. The Russian system of serfdom was much more formalized, closer to a form of slavery, where serfs were owned by their estates. But you're right that in many other regions/periods, peasants were formally free, and legally able to live anywhere they wanted, as long as they reached an arrangement with the landowner (otherwise, of course, it would be trespassing). Since the land was all owned by a smallish number of landowners, the only way to make a living if you were not one of them was to work someone else's land, on terms largely dictated by them, so economics effectively tied peasants to the manorial lord. I'll see if I can dig up the source, but I read an interesting analysis specifically of the transition to feudalism in late-Roman Italy. As the pax Romana weakened, the city of Rome was increasingly unable to be kept supplied with food imported through smoothly functioning trade routes (especially grain from North Africa), so much of the population fled the city for the countryside. There, they had little choice but to reach generally unfavorable agreements with estate owners for permission to work on their land, since Italy was already too densely populated for American-style frontier homesteading in unclaimed land to be possible.
- ippisl 13y ago
  The reason people use Google is not exactly love. I see it more as a lack of energy or will power. Every time you choose not to use Google search, you know you're gonna have to work harder to get good results, and use some amount of will power. Since most people search the Web a lot, the totality of it is quite a large effort and will power. Our society is filled with such choices, be it food, consumerism, cigarettes, etc. Since will power is finite, people will always lose on some of this choices. Also if you really want to stop being tracked, you need some technical understanding and some cooperation from other people and you need will lose some important capabilities in society. This makes the choice even harder.
- noarchy 13y ago
  >The fact that people share their most private information with Google voluntarily actually makes it worse. You can choose not to give your information to Google or Facebook. That people have decided to do it anyway, says more about people than it does about those companies. When you have a central authority (government), you can't opt-out, without being subjected punitive measures. Google can't put you in jail or fine you for failing to use their search engine, or their email service.
  - pron 13y ago
    > That people have decided to do it anyway, says more about people than it does about those companies. Well, yes, but if this is a result of some common form of human weakness, Google is exploiting that weakness. Obviously, anyone seeking power will try to exploit whatever weakness they can find in those they try to gain power over. Both sides of the equation are "natural". It is therefore the government's duty to try and prevent that.
    - noarchy 13y ago
      >Well, yes, but if this is a result of some common form of human weakness, Google is exploiting that weakness. One can argue that, sure. But Google does not have a monopoly in their field. They may be the best, by some measures, but there are choices, and those choices include the ability to use someone else's services (or no one's) >Obviously, anyone seeking power will try to exploit whatever weakness they can find in those they try to gain power over. Both sides of the equation are "natural". It is therefore the government's duty to try and prevent that. We can't exempt government itself from the dynamics of power and how it affects people. The problem I see here is that, when the checks and balances that are supposed to rein in government abuses fail, we're in trouble. You can walk away from Google's services, but that level of choice doesn't exist when we're talking about government.
      - pron 13y ago
        > But Google does not have a monopoly in their field. A monopoly isn't required for this kind of exploitation. A feudal system can have quite a few lords. > The problem I see here is that, when the checks and balances that are supposed to rein in government abuses fail, we're in trouble. Absolutely. We must try to keep democracy itself working in order for it to be able to save us from feudalism. I'd even argue that a government with failing checks and balances is also one more likely to let feudalism grow. > You can walk away from Google's services, but that level of choice doesn't exist when we're talking about government. With this I disagree. Well, I agree with the second part, of course, but I don't think people can walk away from Google (and not straight into the hands of another Google). The option exists in theory, and some people who care about privacy will walk away, but the majority won't because the "Google option" is so tempting. I care a lot about privacy, and yet I use Google's services because, honestly, I can't be bothered not too. But I do think Google must be broken up and/or come under heavy regulation. Most forms of exploitation are not overt. Many of them don't seem to hurt that much - at least at first. If they did, the people will rebel. Most forms of exploitation lull you into submission, always providing you with the theoretical option to "walk away at any time".
yummyfajitas 13y ago
In the US, I don't think anyone ever felt that BigCo was ever 'like you and me'. That's why the term "Big XXX" (for XXX = tobacco, pharma, and recently tech) is generally used to drum up fear and loathing about an industry. Unlike Europe, the US also has a significant subpopulation that views the government suspiciously. This is not an opposing narrative - this group also tends to be suspicious of corporations, particularly the large corporations that collude with the government.

by amirmc 13y ago

pron 13y ago

I'd say everywhere in the western world other than the US. People often forget that the whole purpose of government is to protect us from that organization of society that naturally arose in the West (and east Asia, too) before central governments, namely feudalism. When no central authority regulates power, power would always become concentrated in the hands of the few, who would inevitably subjugate the many through economic bonds. While, like many, I am appalled at the NSA's supposed massive-scale surveillance, I fear surveillance by corporations like Google much more. The fact that people share their most private information with Google voluntarily actually makes it worse. If you want to know where real power lies, look for power that is not only feared, but loved (say, your mother :)). Many people have referred to the book 1984 in the past week, but they've all missed one crucial point: Big Brother is not feared; he is loved. At the end of the book, Winston voluntarily subjugates himself to Big Brother. He loves Big Brother. As long as the NSA has some form of oversight, however dysfunctional -- as long as government is at least suspect -- we'll be fine. But the much bigger danger is Google itself, the power that people love; that they voluntarily subjugate themselves to. It seems that Americans, perhaps because their government was formed not from feudalism, but as a rebellion against a foreign central government -- are very much aware of the dangers of government, but are blind to the much bigger threat of feudalism.

spindritf 13y ago
> the whole purpose of government is to protect us from that organization of society that naturally arose in the West (and east Asia, too) before central governments, namely feudalism Feudal lords were the government. A centralised one, too, with a king or some other emperor at the top. Democratic governments are not protecting you from the feudal ones any more than your ISP protects you from the telephone company.
- pron 13y ago
  In some cases there was a king at the top, and in some there wasn't. But in any case, the king's powers were far from what we call "government" today. His authority was limited to whatever form of self-interested allegiance he could get from his lords. A centralized government tries to have a monopoly on power, in the sense that it can limit the power any citizen, or a group of citizens, can have. Of course, some governments may choose to limit power selectively, and allow some individuals, or small groups, obtain almost as much power as feudal lords. But it's the democratic government's duty to protect us from feudal lords -- in fact it's the only weapon we have against feudalism -- so there's a fine balance to strike between a government that's despotic and one that allows feudalism to flourish.
mjn 13y ago
In addition to feudalism, significant parts of the world were also de-facto ruled by European trading companies, who were stronger than the local governments, and not meaningfully restrained by their home governments. Stuff like the Dutch East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company.
yummyfajitas 13y ago
Feudal lords subjugated the many through threats of violence, not "economic bonds". "Economic bonds" is just another term for "made the best offer" - that's very far from what feudal lords did.
- pron 13y ago
  It was through economic bonds. Not to get into too much detail, but the lower ranks of feudal nobility were "lords of manors" (with higher ranks being lords of lords). The manor system (manorialism[1]) was the economic foundation of feudal society. Back when I studied history (many years ago), I read one the most fascinating history papers I've ever read: The Rise of Dependent Cultivation and Seignorial Institutions by Marc Bloch[2] (I couldn't find a free version online). There was little, if any, violence directed at peasants - certainly not one meant to get them to work. The entire system was founded on the fact that peasants had little choice: they didn't own the land, and it was hard for them to relocate to other manors. Systems built around direct coercion, with the threat of violence, are rarely stable. Successful exploitation is one whose targets either hardly feel or one that's not bad enough to get them to rebel. The way these systems often collapse is that over time, the exploiters feel more confident to exploit even more, until they reach a breaking point at which a rebellion occurs. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism [2]: http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9781139054423&cid=CBO9781139054423A009 http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/ch...
  - mjn 13y ago
    It does vary based on the region/era we're talking about. The Russian system of serfdom was much more formalized, closer to a form of slavery, where serfs were owned by their estates. But you're right that in many other regions/periods, peasants were formally free, and legally able to live anywhere they wanted, as long as they reached an arrangement with the landowner (otherwise, of course, it would be trespassing). Since the land was all owned by a smallish number of landowners, the only way to make a living if you were not one of them was to work someone else's land, on terms largely dictated by them, so economics effectively tied peasants to the manorial lord. I'll see if I can dig up the source, but I read an interesting analysis specifically of the transition to feudalism in late-Roman Italy. As the pax Romana weakened, the city of Rome was increasingly unable to be kept supplied with food imported through smoothly functioning trade routes (especially grain from North Africa), so much of the population fled the city for the countryside. There, they had little choice but to reach generally unfavorable agreements with estate owners for permission to work on their land, since Italy was already too densely populated for American-style frontier homesteading in unclaimed land to be possible.
ippisl 13y ago
The reason people use Google is not exactly love. I see it more as a lack of energy or will power. Every time you choose not to use Google search, you know you're gonna have to work harder to get good results, and use some amount of will power. Since most people search the Web a lot, the totality of it is quite a large effort and will power. Our society is filled with such choices, be it food, consumerism, cigarettes, etc. Since will power is finite, people will always lose on some of this choices. Also if you really want to stop being tracked, you need some technical understanding and some cooperation from other people and you need will lose some important capabilities in society. This makes the choice even harder.
noarchy 13y ago
>The fact that people share their most private information with Google voluntarily actually makes it worse. You can choose not to give your information to Google or Facebook. That people have decided to do it anyway, says more about people than it does about those companies. When you have a central authority (government), you can't opt-out, without being subjected punitive measures. Google can't put you in jail or fine you for failing to use their search engine, or their email service.
- pron 13y ago
  > That people have decided to do it anyway, says more about people than it does about those companies. Well, yes, but if this is a result of some common form of human weakness, Google is exploiting that weakness. Obviously, anyone seeking power will try to exploit whatever weakness they can find in those they try to gain power over. Both sides of the equation are "natural". It is therefore the government's duty to try and prevent that.
  - noarchy 13y ago
    >Well, yes, but if this is a result of some common form of human weakness, Google is exploiting that weakness. One can argue that, sure. But Google does not have a monopoly in their field. They may be the best, by some measures, but there are choices, and those choices include the ability to use someone else's services (or no one's) >Obviously, anyone seeking power will try to exploit whatever weakness they can find in those they try to gain power over. Both sides of the equation are "natural". It is therefore the government's duty to try and prevent that. We can't exempt government itself from the dynamics of power and how it affects people. The problem I see here is that, when the checks and balances that are supposed to rein in government abuses fail, we're in trouble. You can walk away from Google's services, but that level of choice doesn't exist when we're talking about government.
    - pron 13y ago
      > But Google does not have a monopoly in their field. A monopoly isn't required for this kind of exploitation. A feudal system can have quite a few lords. > The problem I see here is that, when the checks and balances that are supposed to rein in government abuses fail, we're in trouble. Absolutely. We must try to keep democracy itself working in order for it to be able to save us from feudalism. I'd even argue that a government with failing checks and balances is also one more likely to let feudalism grow. > You can walk away from Google's services, but that level of choice doesn't exist when we're talking about government. With this I disagree. Well, I agree with the second part, of course, but I don't think people can walk away from Google (and not straight into the hands of another Google). The option exists in theory, and some people who care about privacy will walk away, but the majority won't because the "Google option" is so tempting. I care a lot about privacy, and yet I use Google's services because, honestly, I can't be bothered not too. But I do think Google must be broken up and/or come under heavy regulation. Most forms of exploitation are not overt. Many of them don't seem to hurt that much - at least at first. If they did, the people will rebel. Most forms of exploitation lull you into submission, always providing you with the theoretical option to "walk away at any time".

yummyfajitas 13y ago

In the US, I don't think anyone ever felt that BigCo was ever 'like you and me'. That's why the term "Big XXX" (for XXX = tobacco, pharma, and recently tech) is generally used to drum up fear and loathing about an industry. Unlike Europe, the US also has a significant subpopulation that views the government suspiciously. This is not an opposing narrative - this group also tends to be suspicious of corporations, particularly the large corporations that collude with the government.