21–30 of 78 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Force is only one form of influence. As recently posted on HN, search engines have a strong influence over their users' thinking and decision making. Article: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255633
Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it. I can stop using Google products tomorrow without the need for a gun or explanation. The article is sowing some serious FUD. Everything is engaged in behavior modification. That's the basic point of products and services. Watch more/better/less/no TV. Exercise more. Eat healthier. Stand up at work. Reward yourself with a ca…
Gandhi would disagree with you.
The weakness of hard power is that it is expensive, blatant in application, and virtually guaranteed to create opposition. The strength of soft power is that it is indirect while being cheaper and less likely to create resentment. People are best manipulated through suggestion rather than coercion.
Hard power is ugly but at least it's obvious. Soft power can be just as ugly by being insidious.
But, it's useful to keep in mind that the aggregation of all data on a person, across all sources, is several orders of magnitude greater than what Google has. And, very recently, that larger set has been merged together.
> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Force is only one form of influence. As recently posted on HN, search engines have a strong influence over their users' thinking and decision making. Article: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11255633
Force is the ultimate form of influence against which there is only force to stand against it. I can stop using Google products tomorrow without the need for a gun or explanation. The article is sowing some serious FUD. Everything is engaged in behavior modification. That's the basic point of products and services. Watch more/better/less/no TV. Exercise more. Eat healthier. Stand up at work. Reward yourself with a ca…
"You’re giving them information; they sell your information." This is a common misconception about Google, so one can understand why the authors came to this conclusion. It would be very interesting to see evidence to the contrary. https://privacy.google.com/about-ads.html
Not sure why you were downvoted, but Google is hardly the most creepy actor here. My top votes are for Facebook and ad retargeting. One of the things people don't realize is how strict data hygene and log access inside Google is. Cross correlating data across major services in an attempt to demask individuals is a huge no-no and gets you fired. Plus there is a ton of engineers and staff who deeply care about privacy.…
Unless you own all the endpoints, then it's just about keeping others out and maintaining your competitive advantage.
> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.
Because any of those suggestions, all of which you seem to imply by your statement I would take issue with. The last being the most important.
The platitudes suggesting anything a corporation does, no matter how powerful, is okay since it can't employ physical force, while anything the government does is wrong because it can are excellent fodder to trick children into accepting Libertarianism but are otherwise mostly ineffective.
> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.
Anyway, it's a thoughtful essay. But I'm a simple person, and I tend to prefer action to contemplation. Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. You block tracking and ads. You harden browsers against fingerprinting. You use operating systems that respect your privacy. You compartmentalize your online activity enough that surveillance won't hurt you, using multiple devices and VMs, that connect via VPN services and Tor.
It's not simple, I admit. But it can be a fun game. For me, anyway. Most people still don't seem to care enough to bother. And I don't know what it would take to change that. So it goes.
> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.
Are you suggesting google doesn't employ people with guns? Are you suggesting google and the government are fundamentally separate entities? Are you suggesting the government does not have access to everything google has access to? And are you suggesting non-governmental agencies can't employ physical force? Like the groups of violent criminals used to destroy the pro-union movement many years ago or organized crime…
"children" uses ad hominem attacks. Force is great when the force is directed against dissenting views, but not so cool when your views are in the minority.
> Governmental control is nothing compared to what Google is up to. Governments have guns, Google does not. I'm not saying we should ignore corporate surveillance but there is a big difference.
Yes. More generally, governments monopolize the use of force. Against corporate surveillance, there's at least a chance of resisting. Against governments, you put your life on the line. Anyway, it's a thoughtful essay. But I'm a simple person, and I tend to prefer action to contemplation. Interfering with corporate surveillance starts with simple steps. You block tracking and ads. You harden browsers against fingerpr…
It's harder than you suggest, because all that you propose helps little with some big elephants in the room:
https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-be...
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/06/faceb...
http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/14/iphone-address-book/
Basically, people have to start telling other people that they are jerks for letting big corporations mine their most private conversations just to save $1 or $2 dollars per month. Obviously, this won't happen.