Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Too Much Power For One Man

drewdavismedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#51

Post by hydroxylGroup »

nmrm wrote: post #40
maddev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the slow erosion of privacy expectations, etc. > slow SLOW?????? More like super-sonic.

Maybe gradual would've been a more appropriate word. The point is it happened piecemeal over 15 or so years, rather than all at once.

I would say it started in 2004 and completed by 2009.

In 2004, social networking websites came to prominence. By 2009, social networking had been implicitly integrated into smart phones that had been unleashed upon the world, and peer pressure (among youth in particular) and dark patterns of usability were coercing or subverting any natural tendencies to participate in geolocation and facial recognition research and development.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#52

Post by makmanalp »

Wild conspiracy theory aside, I just realized that in a few years after the nest userbase grows more, they could tweak the temperature setting algorithm to secretly and gradually lower the user's "acceptable" temperature over time to acclimate users to lower temperatures, cutting energy usage in the world by a significant amount. Conspiracy for good? :)

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#53

Post by gress »

nmrm wrote: post #2

Eh. This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn't some super villain building robot armies to take over the world. Any significant harm he/Google might do to the world will likely be via the unintended consequences of actions motivated primarily by profit. We already see this -- the slow erosion of privacy expectations, etc. As for all of the internet of things/robotics acquisitions and R&D... well, I'm…

Being motivated 'purely by profit' means that you are deliberately acting without morals. That isn't an unintended consequence. It is an intended consequence of pretending you aren't responsible for your actions.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#54

Post by nmrm »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #47
nmrm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author just lays out the facts, then concludes by stating that he is not saying that Page will abuse his power, but simply that he could. Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.) You don't need to resort to conspiracy in order to isolate real ways in which Google…

> Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories I missed the conspiracy theory in the article. Can you point it out? Again, it appeared to be a series of facts illustrating the power of Google/Page and a rational question: Do these facts represent the concentration of too much power in one man's hands? > distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that Google a…

I wish you would read what I'm writing instead of what you want me to (not) be writing.

>The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did.

Oh come on. It's the entire damn point of the article. Without this running narrative, the article's just a list of Google's most successful products and its recent acquisitions. Despite your claim, the article isn't simply a list. And the editorializing is the only reason this article is on the front page of HN. Period.

I realize it's just a rhetorical device, but the article reads still like a conspiracy theory. The only thing this article does is, at best, lump critics of Google's privacy behavior in with conspiracy nuts.

And there's no reason to appeal to fantastical "what-if's" when there are real, demonstrable problems.

> Why can't it be both-and vs. either-or?

It can be (see below), and I think the notion that I somehow implied Google's new expansions cannot be problematic is mostly a fabrication of your indigence.

It's just that I think the narrative of the article is completely ridiculous and trivializes actual avenues for abuse.

What is Google doing to do with military technology? It has 3 options:

1. Use it to create technology which augments its other ventures.

2. Sell to US Govt or our allies.

3. Create a private army or sell to our enemies.

2 and 3 don't worry me for the same reason I don't worry about Boeing taking over the world; military tech is closely monitored and regulated. I don't have to know Page's motives to know that he knows that if he were try try 3, he'd probably end up in prison or dead.

I don't have to be omniscient to assume he probably wouldn't take that kind of risk. And hell, I don't even need to know anything about him to know that if he did, the US military would be able to easily unilaterally shut him down.

Scenario 1 worries me (despite what you've read into my previous comments), but it's really just an additional element of the privacy problem. And the author was too busy telling a cute story to focus on non-insane potential avenues of abuse.

TL;DR: Rhetoric matters, and the rhetoric of this article is unhelpful at best, and possibly harmful.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#55

Post by hellbanner »

jp555 wrote: post #10

A fitting cartoon analogy for cartoon logic. I am reminded of an Alan Moore quote: “In the mid 1980's I was asked by an american legal institution known as the Christic Legal Institute to compile a comic book that would detail the murky history of the C.I.A., from the end of the second world war, to the present day. Covering such things as the heroin smuggling during the Vietnam war, the cocaine smuggling during the…

I'm reminded of the cross-referenced index of conspiracy theories, one per page for several hundred pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_Is_Under_Control

http://www.rawilson.com/undercontrol.html (Sample)

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#56

Post by hsod »

gress wrote: post #53
nmrm wrote: post #2

Eh. This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn't some super villain building robot armies to take over the world. Any significant harm he/Google might do to the world will likely be via the unintended consequences of actions motivated primarily by profit. We already see this -- the slow erosion of privacy expectations, etc. As for all of the internet of things/robotics acquisitions and R&D... well, I'm…

Being motivated 'purely by profit' means that you are deliberately acting without morals. That isn't an unintended consequence. It is an intended consequence of pretending you aren't responsible for your actions.

Was the parent post edited? Right now it says "motivated primarily by profit," not "purely"

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#58

Post by nmrm »

hsod wrote: post #56
gress wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being motivated 'purely by profit' means that you are deliberately acting without morals. That isn't an unintended consequence. It is an intended consequence of pretending you aren't responsible for your actions.

Was the parent post edited? Right now it says "motivated primarily by profit," not "purely"

No, I didn't edit that post.

Also, gress: I don't necessarily disagree with you. But there is a distinction.

Re: Too Much Power For One Man

#60

Post by nmrm »

kabouseng wrote: post #57

This, and some of the comments sounds like something out of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Damn those that make profit and dont share it with those with less ability...

What the hell are you talking about?

The article is about power, not money. Also, there's no suggested course of action. In fact, a legitimate course of action could be "stop using Google's services so that if shit hits the fan, they don't have your data".

How could enlightened self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?

It's really best never to think of those you disagree with in terms of flat caricatures.

Post reply on HN