4 ms·

>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 Goog

by 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".

by noarchy 13y ago

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".