Comment by throwaway98121 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway98121 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

My personal opinion based on what I know.

Grouping these companies together as big tech and these brushing broad strokes isn’t helpful. It just seems like we’re picking the next bogeyman, sort of like how all the oil companies were grouped together, even though there were specific bad actors.

It distorts the real issues and almost emboldens the other side who now work collectively to dismiss you as a tin foil conspiracy peddler.

In my opinion, Facebook has some real issues with privacy and how they are able to legally provide a service that has taken the worst aspects of society and amplified them 1000x. Politics are more cancerous than ever. People have been murdered because of the misinformation and hate speech propaganda. Meanwhile, one of my best friends who works at FB as a senior engineer is convinced they’re changing the world for the better.

Amazon, for instance, has fueled massive inequality in the Seattle area. As far as I know, they’re not selling customer data, although from what I’ve learned, they combined technology with great ideas on how to skirt regulation.

My point being, a company like Amazon vs. Facebook - there are different issues. Grouping Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft together - its like the right wing conspiracy theories on how the Mueller investigation is a conspiracy funded by Soros, Obama, the Clintons, the Muslim brotherhood, and gays.

This isn’t helpful and it distracts from the real issues.

I think it's reasonable to group these companies together if you're talking about wide trends and are careful to be specific when talking about certain instances. It's not wrong to say that "big tech" has contributed to rising inequality, data privacy issues, disruption of labor, monopoly effects, etc.

The specific companies are not contributing to each effect but on aggregate its a valid method of analyzing the societal impacts of the industry.

I don't know man? That's a little high level.

In my neck of the woods, if I tell people, "Amazon treats their employees like crap." They get it.

If I say, "Google can track your location with android phones so don't bring your phone to see your weed man." They get it.

I can even say, "Facebook is full of Ruskies trying to influence the election." They'll get it. They'll know what I mean and everything that entails.

But if I come at the people in my small town with, "Big Tech is what drives wealth inequity by disrupting traditional labor markets and causing data privacy issues. Which, of course, concert to cause knock on effects in the larger economy." Yeah, that's the kind of post-graduate parrot-speak that makes them look at my mother disapprovingly for raising such a pretentious ass-hat.

I gotta agree with the guy using the throwaway account on this one.

One factor is the defense that "XYZ is doing it worse!". Microsoft justifies telemetry by pointing at Google. Amazon justifies 3rd-party sellers by pointing at Alibaba, and sponsored product ads by pointing at Google. Google says they are better at security than other adtech vendors. Each enables the other group members on a collective downward spiral. Where are the incentives for competing in a positive direction?

This is what I have gotten out of the various reviews of this book that have shown up on HN lately:

We, all of us, even the most rational and hard-headed, have buttons that can be pushed. Google and Facebook have gotten, and will continue to get, better and better at pushing our buttons, so that we will do things that may not be in our best interest. Advertisers have always tried to push our buttons, but never had access to the data, and the ML algorithms, that Google and Facebook deploy today. The datasets continue to grow, and the algorithms continue to improve. And no one is stopping it, and no one really knows how far it will go.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com