3 ms·

I feel the same way, and have also been hoping for internet companies to put a stake in the ground. On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point

by friism 13y ago

I feel the same way, and have also been hoping for internet companies to put a stake in the ground. On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public...

adventured 13y ago
That may end up being the view, but in fact it is the people behind these corporations making the decisions. Given this is the United States Military waging an espionage offensive on domestic soil (as well as internationally), I regard it as a brave effort for anyone at any of these companies to stand up and push back.
thaumasiotes 13y ago
I kind of like it. It's a nice blow to the straw viewpoint that corporations should have no rights to speak. Everything these companies say is informed by discussion in the media, among the public, and, yes, with elected officials. The line you want to draw is extremely fuzzy at best in reality. I have read that Genghis Khan's original plan after conquering China was to raze the farming villages to provide more pasture for horses (and the Mongols that horse populations supported). Some bureaucrats pointed out to him that he could personally do better by taxing the Chinese farmers. And he sold out the Mongols to do it, which worked out great for him and the millions of peasants he didn't kill. Do we count that as action by the peasants, who held essentially zero formal power, or by the mandarins, who could never have afforded to pay for the deal themselves?
- 001sky 13y ago
  the straw viewpoint that corporations should have no rights to speak But the CEO's also have a moral obligation to lead. Frankly, they have this obligation even if its not in the financial (narrow) interest of their company. Although what we are clearly seeing here is the 'existential' threat not only to their business models, but that <history> will view them as compllicit in a bad thing, imho.
derefr 13y ago
In a funny way (funny because we're usually seeing strictly the opposite happen) corporations can represent public interests in a way that none of those other groups do. Corporations are, after all, nothing more than solutions to the Collective Action Problem. You take a disenfranchised minority, pull it all together to collaborate, give it some money... and now you've got an enfranchised minority (usually called a Political Action Committee.) Make that source of money self-sustaining, though, and you've got the definition of a (perhaps not-for-profit) corporation.
rayiner 13y ago
Upvotes here. This is why Citizens United was rightly decided. Right here.
tedks 13y ago
>On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public... Democracy is effectively dead; who could we have voted for that would not have done these things if not Obama? The United States is an oligarchy, just as the Internet has become feudal. Sometimes we'll agree with the decisions of the oligarchs; other times we won't. But that isn't the question. Should we live in an oligarchy? (Personally, I'm less optimistic that this is any sort of "tipping point." Humans rarely change their minds, and Snowden became a traitorous footnote to most people a long time ago.)

by friism 13y ago

adventured 13y ago

That may end up being the view, but in fact it is the people behind these corporations making the decisions. Given this is the United States Military waging an espionage offensive on domestic soil (as well as internationally), I regard it as a brave effort for anyone at any of these companies to stand up and push back.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

I kind of like it. It's a nice blow to the straw viewpoint that corporations should have no rights to speak. Everything these companies say is informed by discussion in the media, among the public, and, yes, with elected officials. The line you want to draw is extremely fuzzy at best in reality. I have read that Genghis Khan's original plan after conquering China was to raze the farming villages to provide more pasture for horses (and the Mongols that horse populations supported). Some bureaucrats pointed out to him that he could personally do better by taxing the Chinese farmers. And he sold out the Mongols to do it, which worked out great for him and the millions of peasants he didn't kill. Do we count that as action by the peasants, who held essentially zero formal power, or by the mandarins, who could never have afforded to pay for the deal themselves?

001sky 13y ago
the straw viewpoint that corporations should have no rights to speak But the CEO's also have a moral obligation to lead. Frankly, they have this obligation even if its not in the financial (narrow) interest of their company. Although what we are clearly seeing here is the 'existential' threat not only to their business models, but that <history> will view them as compllicit in a bad thing, imho.

derefr 13y ago

In a funny way (funny because we're usually seeing strictly the opposite happen) corporations can represent public interests in a way that none of those other groups do. Corporations are, after all, nothing more than solutions to the Collective Action Problem. You take a disenfranchised minority, pull it all together to collaborate, give it some money... and now you've got an enfranchised minority (usually called a Political Action Committee.) Make that source of money self-sustaining, though, and you've got the definition of a (perhaps not-for-profit) corporation.

rayiner 13y ago

Upvotes here. This is why Citizens United was rightly decided. Right here.

tedks 13y ago

>On the other hand, it frustrates me that the tipping point for how Snowden's legacy will be viewed is action by a set of corporations, and not action by elected officials, the media, or an informed public... Democracy is effectively dead; who could we have voted for that would not have done these things if not Obama? The United States is an oligarchy, just as the Internet has become feudal. Sometimes we'll agree with the decisions of the oligarchs; other times we won't. But that isn't the question. Should we live in an oligarchy? (Personally, I'm less optimistic that this is any sort of "tipping point." Humans rarely change their minds, and Snowden became a traitorous footnote to most people a long time ago.)