211–220 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does “sacrificing privacy” mean something other than “seeing personalized ads”? What’s the difference?
You may think it's just personal ads, but ones and zeroes have a tendency to spread far and wide https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-b...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the concept of corporate free speech, person-hood and "too big to let fail."
Freedom is assembly and freedom of speech add up to freedom of group speech, including unions, political groups, ethnic groups, and so on. I don't know why corporations would be special groups without that right. But, yeah, corporate personhood and bailouts need to be revisited. It's too bad that we need to have a functional policital culture to make any significant changes like that.
Assembly is fine, but as far as I'm concerned, any organization that accepts donations for political purposes should be required to have open books, outlining where donations come from, and not allowing donations from foreign sources, including international conglomerates.
That's just where I stand... I go very far on personal liberty, and the ability to form groups with public receipts, but that's where it should end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I own some Apple stock. I don’t influence in any meaningful way how Apple spends its money. I don’t influence in any meaningful way their corporate policy. The owners of Apple, save for a few individuals, don’t have a real say in how Apple uses its freedom of speech. Apple is not a group of people coming together in the same way political organizations are and Apple/Google/Exxon, etc. have far more money to send on p…
You can sell your shares if you think Apple is spending money that is not good for making its shareholders more money. You selling shares will have non zero impact on the market price of Apple shares.
> In Google’s early days, Page and Brin were wary of exploiting the data they collected for monetary gain, fearing it would corrupt their project. They limited themselves to using the information to improve search results, for the benefit of users. That changed after the dot-com bust. Google’s once-patient investors grew restive, demanding that the founders figure out a way to make money, preferably lots of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations exist to limit the liability of owners, in particular to decrease risk to owners. Given that owners of corporations are given such special treatment, it makes perfect sense that such an organization does not inherit the rights of the citizens that are protected from the results of the corporation's actions.
Corporate personhood cuts both ways. If a corporation doesn't have free speech rights or any of the rights of a person, does it have legal obligations? Can it be sued? Can it enter into a contract and be held to it's terms? The ability of courts to hold corporations accountable under the law and the constitution, in the United States, also relies on the notion of corporate personhood. The notion that people do not lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come to the dark side. It’s glorious (with maybe one or two minor issues).
> one or two minor issues Don't be fooled. By minor he means "Yes, the kernel panics on boot, but the kernel did load."
It boots completely fine to a blank, black screen with no errors at all.
Completely minor. Just need to set a few kernel options to make it work properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations exist to limit the liability of owners, in particular to decrease risk to owners. Given that owners of corporations are given such special treatment, it makes perfect sense that such an organization does not inherit the rights of the citizens that are protected from the results of the corporation's actions.
What that means in practice is that corporations that are friendly to the establishment can say whatever they want, and those that oppose the establishment are subject to prosecution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What that means in practice is that corporations that are friendly to the establishment can say whatever they want, and those that oppose the establishment are subject to prosecution.
Evidence? This was a relatively recent decision. If what you say is true, there should be mountains of relatively recent evidence for it in the US. Otherwise you're just promoting a groundless personal theory.
McCain-Feingold was only law for under a decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you see Google and Facebook as equals in terms of badness? Honestly, I’ve always perceived Google as less insidious than Facebook. To me FB is more in your face, channeling your behavior. Google seems more passive and delivers more utility. What am I missing?
Google's surveillance system has more reach that Facebook's. Both are extensive, but it's pretty common to find webpages that contain no facebook tracking but do contain google tracking. In fact it's pretty rare to find websites that don't contain any google tracking. And I can avoid Facebook's gaze by using email, but if I use email almost inevitably somebody I want to email will be using gmail, meaning any messages…