gt_

15 ms·

61.
by gt_ 8y ago
Right. If nothing harmful has been reported by New York Times by now, then I’m sure nothing could ever go wrong. I’m critiquing the shape of the system and the potential for harm. The municipal duties our ancestors fought to have managed th
62.
by gt_ 8y ago
> You can’t change my username. But what if they could? The issue here isn’t that Google got the name wrong, but that they actively chose a new one and could change it to the new one because the public depends on a private entity’s m
63.
by gt_ 8y ago
Please tell me you’re joking. West Virginia is precisely an example of only the wealthy enjoying nature. The wealthy retreat to Greenbrier or go skiing at Snowshoe Mountain. All the while, the working class turn to nature to build squatter
64.
by gt_ 8y ago
I got it! You’re right; America is a big place. It’s hard to conceive of all that mass at once. But is a state too big? I mean, most are much smaller than the largest of the rest of the developed world which has been treating healthcare as
65.
by gt_ 8y ago
Like what freedom? The freedom to choose between health insurance and rent?
66.
by gt_ 8y ago
And we could stop using the word “toxic” to describe poor people.
67.
by gt_ 8y ago
Americans call this simply “business strategy”. The “brilliant” descriptor depends how many millions of dollars they make.
68.
by gt_ 8y ago
It sounds like you might be missing a few things. Private companies are, by definition, private entities responsible for prioritizing whatever and however they choose. If you want to have input in a powerful entity, I really recommend start
69.
by gt_ 8y ago
> Why not both? By definition, “companies” are incentivized to prioritize capital pursuit over moral pursuit. It’s actually the most fundamental part of the whole concept. Many democratic governments in the world, and particularly the
70.
by gt_ 8y ago
You would? Google is private company. If you want a powerful entity to live up to your standards, you should look into creating a government. I recommend a democracy; and hold your neighbors accountable for treating it as their own. Toget
71.
by gt_ 8y ago
Right. If the US is representing anybody, it’s Google. For the Americans who want your government to represent you , you’ve got some work to do. Most Americans I know speak of their government as though it were just some poorly run busines
72.
by gt_ 8y ago
HN readers voice real concerns over these issues regularly. For the Americans ready to take them seriously, there’s a long road of dusty books ahead. But we’re short on time so I’ll save you the hassle the only way I know how: https:/
73.
by gt_ 8y ago
> The article is blatantly Marxist. I don’t know how this rubbish ends up on HN all the time. Karl Marx’s contributions to the field of economics are, to put it lightly, vast. Despite the authors’ insistence on it’s incompleteness, Mar
74.
by gt_ 8y ago
This proposition is missing an actual motive. In other words, what’s comfortable about that? We might also ask “what is ‘their own’?” If you are proposing that the government is the organization of the elected officials, you’re wrong. A d
75.
by gt_ 9y ago
The progress is glacial because the private sector wants it to be and can afford to make it that way. “Smart, thoughtful” people who are happier in the private sector is exactly who currently runs our governments. So your plan is already in
76.
by gt_ 9y ago
If only we had a democracy and campaign process that valued informed voters more than monied interests
77.
by gt_ 9y ago
First amendment is just symbolic of course. Once your speech encroaches on enough profit, it will be brought down in no time by the same forces that prevent campaign finance caps. In America you can also freely speak slander on the internet
78.
by gt_ 9y ago
Actually since Citizens United this is effectively pretty much the case. The caps in other countries might not implemented in an umbrella dollar amount but as rules like no TV ads, or the dollar amount could only apply to certain items. Oft
79.
by gt_ 9y ago
The sane and obvious solution is to cap campaign spending. Anything else, willful or not, is either corruption or mere oligarchy.
80.
by gt_ 9y ago
Is this a serious question? Maybe ask why America is the only democratic nation with uncapped campaign spending.
81.
by gt_ 9y ago
Nevermind that Facebook is precisely an “advertiser with specific political agendas”
82.
by gt_ 9y ago
And Marx was right. Russia was communist in the same way America is a democracy.
83.
by gt_ 9y ago
That is not an accurate assessment of this scenario. The idea that capital == money is merely the guiding basis of capitalism.
84.
by gt_ 9y ago
There is (and always will be) no shortage of internet arguments over this exact concern. I will sidestep it and point to social theorist Pierre Bourdieu. Here's an explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5MdA
85.
by gt_ 9y ago
Fair point. But, the concerns with attention are the other part of this thesis. How is attention related to capital? . I think this is a fair question. Something worth considering in relating this to Marx is that while Karl Marx did not
86.
by gt_ 9y ago
The foremost claim of Karl Marx was that capitalism would eventually secede to socialism. Most HN readers were indoctrinated to simplisticly demonize Marx despite ignorance of his nuanced academic legacy, and might overlook the glaring simi
87.
by gt_ 9y ago
Right. They look at what others have gotten away with to predict what they themselves can get away with. And they harvest maximum legal amounts of data in the meantime, so they can execute any future loophole they decide beneficial to profi
88.
by gt_ 9y ago
If you mean Facebook the tech firm, stop kidding yourself. It’s a for-profit enterprise, not a hero’s journey.
89.
by gt_ 9y ago
These biases seem unnecessary to me but some controversial topics are important. HN hosts a lot of controversial conversation. It’s the conspiracy stuff and inherent bias that advertising has toward complacency that seems disturbing.
90.
by gt_ 9y ago
Being “competent at securing your data” is useless when they are incentivized to utilize it. Usually, when an entity motivated against our best interests is considered “competent”, we calculate that they are more of a threat. This makes f

More ›