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

I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–267 of 267 posts

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#261

Post by manjushri »

pluto9 wrote: post #255
manjushri wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition you cherry picked still seems to describe the management of Facebook. What specific part of the definition do you think excludes FB from being called a government? >nobody ever uses the word "government" to describe, such as the football club. FIFA manages football teams, and it describes itself as a government: >The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA; French for "International Fed…

I picked that definition because it's precise , whereas yours was vague. Not all definitions are of equal quality, and choosing a good one over a poor one is not "cherry picking". Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority…

>Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority because citizens agree, whether voluntarily or through intimidation, to respect that authority.

You're comparing apples (FB code) to oranges (citizens). A fair comparison would be users to citizens, or platform code to national territory.

Facebook does not own it's users just like a government doesn't own it citizens. A nation owns the land within it's boundaries just like FB owns the code on it's platform.

>And no, FIFA does not call itself a government. It calls itself a "governing body" in the text you just quoted. That is not the same thing

Again, a government is literally defined as governing body, even thougg you don't like it. Do you think there is a government that doesn't have a governing body?

>We both know I meant a group of people who get together after work to play for fun, and that the people "in charge" of that are obviously not a government. Claiming that that's false because it's not 100% true for FIFA is a pretty egregious straw man.

Claiming that we cannot call Facebook a government because a local football club is not typically called a government is itself an egregious strawman; apples to oranges again. FIFA is a far more comparable to an international entity like Facebook, isn't it?

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#262

Post by pluto9 »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #260
pluto9 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called property rights. They have the same authority over their platform and its members that I have over my house and anyone who wants to use it. Owning property does not make me or anyone else "sovereign" in any meaningful way.

> Owning property does not make me or anyone else "sovereign" in any meaningful way. The US does. And then they delineate national ownership to people/corporations. Property taxes are the upkeep to maintain the ledger in the governmental database(s). And the Government makes laws (congress), adjudicates laws, and enforces laws. Yeah, "does not make .. sovereign" indeed..

> The US does

You and I must have a very different idea of what sovereignty means in the context of governments. Owning property does not make me, Facebook, or anyone else a sovereign government.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#263

Post by pluto9 »

manjushri wrote: post #261
pluto9 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I picked that definition because it's precise , whereas yours was vague. Not all definitions are of equal quality, and choosing a good one over a poor one is not "cherry picking". Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority…

>Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They only have authority because citizens agree, whether voluntarily or through intimidation, to respect that authority. You're comparing apples (FB code) to oranges (citizens). A fair comparison would be…

Your ability to twist my words into the argument you wish I was making instead of the one I'm actually making is impressive. Infuriating, but impressive.

I will try to make this as simple as possible.

Facebook owns its platform (code, hardware, etc.). I own a house.

If someone posts on Facebook, they have the right to remove that post. That is their right over their property (the platform). If someone graffitis the wall of my house, I have the right to remove that graffiti. That is my right over my property (my house).

If Facebook wishes to punish the person (say they posted something illegal), they have to invoke the authority of the actual government. Facebook has no authority over people beyond how they interact with Facebook's property. If I wish to punish the graffiti artist, I must invoke the authority of the actual government. I have no authority over people beyond how they interact with my property. The government does, even though the country that the government serves is not its "property".

That is the difference between property ownership and governance, and it is why neither I nor Facebook are governments.

I don't know how I can make this any simpler, and I don't wish to waste any more time engaging with the umpteenth strawman you're going to throw up, so I'm going to leave it at that.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#264

Post by darpa_escapee »

nickpp wrote: post #246
darpa_escapee wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It wasn't. It was ruled in 2001 that Microsoft, indeed, had a monopoly on the PC operating system market which they used to overtake the browser market. They did this through private contracts with OEMs and distributors such that all PCs sold to customers were to include Windows and only Windows. > Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance…

I meant it wasn't a governments mandated monopoly - I agree with you and that they built a monopoly through anti-competitive practices. But my point is that didn't last as the market punished them for it and made them irrelevant. The market moved to mobiles and web and today they are a good player in the industry. Even on desktop where they still enjoy a healthy margin, it's not monopoly: Windows is ~80% while Mac OS…

> But my point is that didn't last as the market punished them for it and made them irrelevant. The market moved to mobiles and web and today they are a good player in the industry.

This was your point and it's also what I addressed:

> The only monopolies are government-granted, otherwise startups quickly eat their lunch.

You claimed that monopolies are only possible through government regulation, because government regulation creates a barrier to entry that's easily surpassed by larger companies.

I provided proof illustrating that monopolies have been built through private agreements absent of government regulation.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#265

Post by darpa_escapee »

nickpp wrote: post #245
darpa_escapee wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While the evil corporations give us, what, surveillance?! They've given us genocide, environmental destruction, the company town, the risk of being killed for striking, financial collapse, the funding of drug lords and terrorism[1]. [1] https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1616991,0...

All those given to us also by governments but a thousand times worse, along with wars, dictators, mass genocides, race purges, and so on and so forth. I look around me and every single object I use and makes my life better was made by a corporation. From my PC to my phone to my house and my card. While every single thing that makes me fear tomorrow and sucks in my life is controlled by governments: health care, roads…

> I look around me and every single object I use and makes my life better was made by a corporation.

Markets work well for most commodities.

On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid ensure that people don't die so they can hopefully go on to enjoy a better life.

> I don't fear Facebook knowing everything about me and selling that info to third parties

A KGB, but for advertising, still collects and centralizes private info that can be abused by any party, governmental or private. A recent example of that exact dataset being abused by a private entity: the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Also, insurers and repo-men love accurate location tracking etc. Your insurers most likely aren't using that information to give you better rates.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#266

Post by laughingman2 »

nickpp wrote: post #177
laughingman2 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the power of individual vote seems very small, It can be used to instigate change. One can argue that in order to increase the power of people, one has to reduce the power of corporation lobbying etc. Corporations are vast entities of unaccountable power when they are unregulated by a government. Chomsky's criticism of corporations holds good, and is becoming prophetic in all accounts. https://www.youtube.com…

Just recent elections show "the power of the individual vote" used to support things like Brexit in UK, Orban in Hungary, Xi in China, Putin in Russia, Maduro in Venezuela or, why not, Trump. While the evil corporations give us, what, surveillance?! We've never lived under corporations, but we’d always fear them. I for one, fear more the evil I know and I see ruining our world: politicians and their instruments of po…

Corporations have ruined most of asian nations. East India Company British exploited India, looting it from a country having top wealth in world to the bottom, Dutch East India Company destroyed indigenous asian trade.

Fruit companies and other monopolies of USA have routinely looted and exploited people and wealth of Latin American.

I can go on, recent history is rife with corporations exploiting nations for natural resource and wealth.

Re: I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

#267

Post by nitrogen »

hammock wrote: post #175
specialist wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emphatic agreement. Governance is the final frontier. By that I mean "How are grievances adjudicated?" Any one struggling with the "platforms as government" analogy might think of MMORPGs instead.

The final frontier is coercion... threat to life and liberty. Saying MMORPG is a government because the game controls the adjudication of your grievances is like saying Macy's is a government because Macy's Customer Service adjudicates your grievances. Except when it doesn't. Except when the FTC, or the FBI, or any other (real) government overrules them.

I know this is an old thread, but wanted to note that this is similar to saying that federal courts are not courts because they can be overruled by the supreme court. The existence of more powerful forms of government does not negate the existence of less powerful forms.
Post reply on HN