A private company is the de-facto judge, jury and executioner because it owns half the infrastructure you live your life on.
A private company is the de-facto judge, jury and executioner because it owns half the infrastructure you live your life on.
Edit: I recently read this book called "The Every" which explores a similar scenario https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/57792078-the-every
(a) compute cost for uploaded brains is probably more than the cost for the pig slop and water/sewer bills of current model. Recall that prisons right now almost never have AC. If you're going away from corpses, you'll have to pay for that.
(b) Cost of caring for the physical body has pretty much been solved by the markets. The customer has a social network that sends money in and pays transfer fees. This network also pays per call and email. Then the customer purchases food and clothing at monopoly prices, since... it's a captive market! Just imagine the ARR hit when people stop eating.
Reminds me of another "Social Media Corp Gone Bizarrely Crazy" plot that I read recently, The This, by Adam Roberts. You won't anticipate how Crazy the social corp in question goes till you're halfway.
Always makes me laugh when I see employees of Google, Amazon etc. claiming to be “anti-fascist” and “standing in solidarity with the common man” etc etc…
Not having an internet connection is NOT an option. There is a legal process to get a special permit to avoid having to use these state mandated electronic systems but it is almost only theoretically in that you will need to have a doctor's note saying that you are unable to use such systems. E.g., by suffering by severe dementia or similar.
They serve the fiction of confirmed mail delivery. If you don't pick it up from this mailbox, it is considered delivered anyway and your problem, if you miss something here.
Governments have accessibility obligations and so their key services should absolutely be usable with something like Chromium/Linux. And it definitely shouldn't be more onerous than using a smartphone.
It is the portal for Slovak republic. You are supposed to have your national ID card, which is a smart card. To use it, you need a smartcard reader and an application, which basically listens on localhost and is kind of a intermediate between your browser, the pages than need authentication and the department of state, which handles IAM.
That application runs on Windows, Mac and Debian (9,10)/Ubuntu (18.04,20.04)/Mint (19.20) (it is not open source). Other distributions are not supported, forget ChromeOS.
It is quite onerous. You have to enter your PIN for smartcard about four times, before you see the content of the inbox.
I learned it like this, its since recently that applying by email more commonly an option.
People on Hacker News like to propose "just use low-tech!" or "just self host!" often and I don't get how that's a solution. I _could_ spend hours of my day printing out and mailing my resume to companies (if they allowed me to) and waiting days-weeks for my response _after_ they made their decision (during which time I still have to pay bills and have no job) or I could apply with one button on Linkedin and get my response back instantly. It just saves so much time.
Others will say that that's a small price to pay to retain my freedom, which might be true. But what's not true is the other qualities of life that internet and big data affords me. If I don't have instagram or snapchat I literally lose all spontaneous contact with my friends and family. Sure, I _could_ mail them a letter, but with the delay in communication a lot of the intimacy is lost, and we would truthfully just talk a lot less. This, along with a lot of other problems (how do I contact my professor for help after class? go to their house?). Combined with the fact that I would have to be _extremely_ thorough and make sure that my data is scrubbed from all of Facebook/Google/Twitter/Whatever and it's subcompanies, it's just not a real solution. It's actually really annoying that so many are content with infeasible individual solutions instead of advocating for things like pushing against the EARN IT act or the like. I shouldn't have to have a computer science or cyber security degree to be private online - it should be done for me by the government. I don't know what the fuck is in that vaccine (or any medicine I take for that matter) but I can trust that it does me good because of regulations.
Most of the jobs I've worked for have come via old school phone calls.
Having helped my 92 years old grandmother sorting out her tax returns on the government’s website, I can confirm that this is exactly what it means. And it’s the only practical way of communicating with the administration. Most local branches have been closed to the public, and the phone lines are congested all day (and cut you off after one hour waiting, which is always fun).
Having had the pleasure of sharing the elevator with said individuals in shared office buildings the "common man" part almost made me lose my coffee.
I really wish it wasn’t so, but when your company serves the advertiser you aren’t serving humanity. The balance is off and which each passing year it isn’t getting better.
Big Tech monopolies need to be resisted
I can't fault them too badly for that. I consider myself personally against the horrors that go into gathering the constituent materials for, and the assembly of, computers. This position co-exists with the fact that I, like most others here, derive the majority of my livelihood from Doing Things With Computers, which wouldn't be possible without the computers themselves, which wouldn't be possible without the horrors.
Worse still, I live a provably better life than those of my peers whose youth did not, for whatever reason, revolve around Doing Things With Computers, let alone the far-flung people whose labour provides me with the computers on which I do those profitable things.
It's difficult to morally reason about.
So you are forced to use an iPhone or Pixel phone, forced to search with Google, forced to use AWS.
Even though open alternatives exist for all these who would love your support.
I would better let Google have all my photos and track my location than my father ...
In my personal view the internet became one big country with overlapping laws and government policies and collusion by corporations. Ever so often I use google to see what search results they can muster but otherwise I don't use cloud storage and do not find myself depending on google. For email I try to teach my friends how to use Thunderbird so they can click a button and their email is mostly GPG encrypted.
If I wanted to share files with someone that will not fit in that GPG encrypted email then I plonk them down on a mini-PC or a VM and share them over HTTPS with cache-control headers to reduce risk of file caches or SFTP with authentication. This is just my own preference and I am a stodgy cranky old bastard but if someone decides that basic auth is too much friction then it was not important for them to receive the files. I implement my own data retention and destruction policies. How my doctor or lawyer decides to store the files is up to them. I can only hope they are wise enough to not store things on their fondle-slab. An intelligent doctor should be able to handle basic authentication and/or be able to follow simple instructions for creating and sharing a GPG public key with me.
Or I could just snail-mail them an encrypted USB drive, however a GPG encrypted email should suffice for sending a few little images to a doctor. Some will bring up rubber hoses and wrenches but there are mitigations for such things. Some might even want legislation to to bandage these dark patterns but experience has taught me to not trust that corporations would be held to account at the same level and standards as citizens.
Our best bet is to shame those using products of unethical companies.
We know what effect affective privacy policies have - the ten line policy change on Apple App Store has caused all of the ad supported platforms to announce falling revenue. The GDPR has only caused cookie pop ups.
Plot twist: (maybe) Xyz is (not) an (un)ethical company, so we should establish some sort of authority on ethics with a malleable but firm framework to guide the consistent -- and proportional to the unethics in question -- application of shame to the people using the products.
Unfortunately the state has dropped the ball about anti-trust, thanks to stupid economic theories from the Chicago School of Dumbfuckery. Those are the main culprits for the shit we're in.
So perhaps fascism doesn't fit perfectly, but it's pretty damn close in my opinion (especially if you use definition 3 by Wordnik "Oppressive, dictatorial control").
Few to none of the loudest users of “fascist” describe Cuba, Venezuela, or China with the term according this definition. Can only conclude the definition is given in bad faith, and used by people with a silent exception for “states and organizations I find ideologically appealing.”
In fascism 1.0, singular authority vested with the head of government who then subjugated every other institution under the government. In fascism 2.0, power consolidates from the bottom up as corporations weave themselves into our individual lives, merge and collude with each other, and expand their scope in a way that subsumes existing institutions including the existing government.
It's not the same, but it rhymes. Each version seems to be heading towards a similar end state, but coming at it from a different direction. The distinction seems to be the same distinction as between totalitarianism and inverted totalitarianism. Maybe we should call it inverted fascism?
In some cases, it conforms more to classical fascism than many realize.
That said, in this particular case, I’m still not sure it applies.
When it comes to stopping the distribution of child abuse material, there’s no reason to believe that anyone’s acting in bad faith. We can certainly see where they have everything needed to do so (access to people’s personal data, ability to mobilize law enforcement, and a relationship with government that is amenable to suppressing criticism as “dangerous”).
But in this specific case and others like it, we actually see that law enforcement did their job - they did not overreact, they investigated as appropriate, and nobody was charged.
Google continuing to be a dick about it and holding someone’s account hostage isn’t exactly fascism yet, but it is a great demonstration to people how easily big tech can become weapons of fascism, and why it’s important to opt out of centralized big tech (while they still have the chance), to discourage public/private collusion, and reason to support efforts to keep their powers in check, the same as they would any government.
This is a highly loaded paradigm, carrying an extremely misleading framing. From my perspective, US corporations and US government are indeed colluding, against an outside attack trying to tear them down to replace with a different power structure. I've had no love for the US power structure and have myself often wished to wholesale replace it, but the vision that attack is offering is so regressive that I've become extremely conservative for the time being.
> no reason to believe that anyone’s acting in bad faith
Of course nobody is acting in bad faith. Bad faith actions are decently punished by our society, so the structures that have built up operate on good faith, and produce constructive bad outcomes in spite of it.
> but it is a great demonstration to people how easily big tech can become weapons of fascism
This feels like it's missing the ultimate dynamic, by falsely asserting that fascism can only flow from the bona fide government. Whereas actually, Google's actions within Google's currently-limited sphere of influence are fascist in nature, and that sphere is growing. As I said, "similar end state, but coming at it from a different direction".
> it’s important to opt out of centralized big tech
I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I think it's important to describe the fundamental dynamics of these centralized surveillance companies before they have grown to be truly all-encompassing. Even presently, using Google is a mandatory requirement to interact with many government services (Recaptcha), and the more you make yourself known the Google the fewer roadblocks they hit you with. It's not a stretch to think as non-Google browsers ramp up their surveillance protection, that logging into a Google account will become default mandatory to pass such checks, giving Google account status the bona fide force of law.
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different"
Wait for the next EU lawsuit against Google, you will drown under all the comments claiming it is an attack on American companies.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
What you're describing here is more like a cyberpunk corporatocracy, where corporations hold so much power independent of the state, that they are able to exercise their own arbitrary decisions extrajudicially, while still maintaining so much power over people so as to completely control their lives.
In fact, here you can see that the person was exonerated by the state but punished by the corporation. In fascism, nothing supercedes the state.