31–40 of 75 posts
Instead we should be relying on our governments, who have our interests in mind and whose primary job is to protect our rights. ... ..
um...
oops
never mind
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the internet is being used as a "right" or commodity like food and your digital persona, which you don't "own", is being used to profit someone else, and your "right" to it is revoked if you choose to "own" it, the metaphor is apt.
No, it's not apt at all. When your digital self allows for your physical self to be whipped, starved, or forced to mate in the name of profit, it will be apt. Sure, it's not all rainbows and unicorns. But let's not weaken our arguments with ludicrous hyperbole.
The threats of violence and detention against your will by nation states are real, and having Google and other tech companies being complicit is scary. Why are they complicit? Because of the same threats of violence.
We are slaves. Maybe not whipped, maybe not starved, but threatened, poisoned and our children's children are in debt slavery because of the rainbows and unicorns we think is just around the corner if we borrow a little bit more. And by the sweat of their brow will we pay for the NSA / GCHQ, the wars and such like.
> What Facebook and Google have done is discovered a village with no water and they plan to bring them cheap Coke to buy when—if their motives were truly honorable—there is another glaringly obvious option: you could teach them to build a well. Funny you should mention Coke. It turns out that these businesses desiring profits can pretty efficiently solve or make improvement to problems, like distribution, in places l…
Funnily enough, Coke are already draining the wells of villages that do have them. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/19/business.india1
The point I was trying to make is that the motivation of said company may not be to "save the world", but the results (and the impressive efficiency of attaining them) may do a lot of good, even if indirectly.
We shouldn't be relying on for-profit companies to provide a service as basic (in today's modern world) and powerful (education, health, etc) as internet access... because they have nefarious motives in mind. Instead we should be relying on our governments, who have our interests in mind and whose primary job is to protect our rights. ... .. um... oops never mind
Aral should be ashamed of himself. He should publicly apologise.
Does everyone actually deserve internet access? Is that an inalienable human right? If people want something of value, they have to provide value in return. If Google and Facebook see value in the people's data, then they are willing to give them "free" internet. It is a choice to give those corporations your data in exchange for their services.
Saying that people deserve something can be dangerous. Who provides these things that we all deserve? If there's no economic incentive, why would someone spend the money to provide goods and services for other people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure it's possible. I don't think NSA-style tracking of all requests would be in Google's best interest, as it wouldn't do wonders for their image.
They don't care about their image. They care if they get locked up if they don't comply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not apt at all. When your digital self allows for your physical self to be whipped, starved, or forced to mate in the name of profit, it will be apt. Sure, it's not all rainbows and unicorns. But let's not weaken our arguments with ludicrous hyperbole.
It's not considering that everyone's privacy is being violated. You have no rights if it's in digital form. Your speech is monitored. You are physically removed from a country because of a misunderstood tweet. [An example : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 ]. The threats of violence and detention against your will by nation states are real, and having Google and other tech companies being complicit is sc…
On the other hand: a private company offers you a free service which if you may voluntarily opt-in to. If you so choose, they will use to collect information of value to try and sell you stuff. You may then choose, or not, to engage with those advertisements. In many cases, there are trivial options to hinder or reduce this tracking, including options provided by the companies themselves.
It is certainly hyperbole, and succeeds only in (a) demeaning further those millions of people trapped in real slavery, and (b) weakening any arguments on the negative aspects of internet surveillance.