"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signals 'something not desirable.'" --George Orwell
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"