Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewThrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Cyberpunk dystopia realized. It is not so hard to imagine a near future where corporations have much more power than states.

Imagine you do something like this in the near future. You are banned from all communications. Alpha corp. reports it to VISA corp. and all your money is confiscated. State can't help you as you do not have a way to communicate with it, don't have a way to start any legal process as you do not have a way to pay. All your daily subscriptions to housing, mobility, entertainment are cancelled and you are homeless the same day.

The only way for you to stay alive is to hike to lawless desert city of "Kowloon 2.1". You walk by the highways observing huge OLED billboards. They show presidential elections. This time it is some adult TV reality show star competing with tanned bodybuilder.

View on HN

I agree with the overall view but, corporations with more power than states is the wrong frame, IMO.

What we're seeing here is symbiosis, not competition. Google empowers (overpowers) the state and the state empowers Google. It's state action that required and legitimised automated & invasive "crime detection," while requiring and legitimising underlying the underlying data collection and privacy invasion that forms a pillar of Google's ad business.

Google's lobbying and advisory efforts, and their position as a big competent partner empowers the state. When citizens lobby them to "do something" to protect children, they go to Google to borrow their power.

"Centralisation" is too zeitgeist and has the wrong connotation, but it's close. "Convergence" is probably a better term. Actual tensions between State(s), Google and say Apple are minor compared to symbiotic reinforcement.

We're seeing one small element of Google-powered policing here. The totality is likely much broader, and law enforcement is and will be very dependant on this. Apple make more (at a 100% profit margin) selling Google their defaults than they (or anyone) could possibly make competing.

I could argue that the State is becoming irrelevant as laws controlling corporations are written by the same corporations (through lobbying and general involvement as an "experts of the field"). These laws are written not only be serving the corporation but also making the corporation blameless.

So it is not a symbiosis per se but rather complete overtake of host (State).

State becoming irrelevant makes politics a reality show.

Tell that to the Ukrainians.

While this is a very popular cynical view, it simply doesn't explain much. Corporations would like many many things that are not happening, because certain groups of people want otherwise. (Eg. cheap immigrant labor, less restriction on building, lowering of tariffs, repeal of the Jones Act.)

Though you could say that protectionism benefits a lot of companies, but a decrease in it would benefit more (and bigger ones).

By the time it explains more it will be too late. This is a prognostication - a warning about where we're headed. It's a caution sign by a trailhead leading to a washed out bridge.

The counter view is that we are all becoming to apolitical and the world is becoming too fuzzy/overcomplex in our view, so that our traditional political system can cope with them. The thesis, antithesis, symbiosis mechanism described by Hegel has produced a great blur of least bad options for the majority (some being at least really bad for a few) . It would be up to the intellectuals to at least develop a more inclusive antithesis. I am only seeing hyper-capitalist BS as a proposed "radical" option. A revolution needs a good cause...

I really disagree.

It's really obviously symbiotic if you look at any level of detail.

Old leftists see it as corporations taking over the state. Conservatives see it as the state taking over corporations. Meanwhile, it's extremely obvious that both are complicit and that they grow to rely on each other in quickly inextricable ways.

This article is about Google doing police work: surveillance, analysis, investigation. It is only one example, a detail within a larger framework. Now, privacy focused competition represents an interference with critical police work.

Meanwhile, Google is highly involved in drafting legislative detail about how copyright is implemented. How liability for platform usage is implemented. Etc.

The state is not irrelevant at all. Politics might be a reality TV show, but that's always been the case.

>Conservatives see it as the state taking over corporations.

But this is false. Corporations are and always will be exclusively answerable to their shareholders. Whereas the state can have any loyalty depending on who is controlling it

> exclusively answerable to their shareholders.

Shareholders are pretty happy under a system in which the corporation benefits from tax breaks and loopholes, fat government contracts, favorable legal environments, carve-outs for regulation exemptions, regulations that make entry into existing markets prohibitively expensive, etc.

It's not too far fetched. I have been discriminated with Revolut. With corps it's as simple as who's on the other end of the line. Not very different from TSA singling out person of certain colors. I approached the state to intervene and was simply told it's out of their remit because even though Revolut can operate in the state, it doesn't have the license. By the time you reach to the other end of rabbit hole, it's not worth the hassle.

Voting with dollars works with corps so they are self correcting, in the sense of they want to keep their customer base. But what happens when someone is poor enough to not be their customer? Or they are rich enough to overlook discriminatory behavior of their employees?

In the end invisible hand of capitalism sorts out corporations. But OPs example of a ruined life is totally possible. Yes, state can be more powerful but by the time it reacts, it might be too late.

The state can also send you off to die in a war. It's not as though it is better than corporations. Just different.

And it is no more likely to cater for small minorities than a corporation; it just claims it will. If there's political will then it might happen, just as businesses are started to cater for emerging markets. But there's no guarantee.

>> Voting with dollars works with corps

It does not. This is a silly myth.

It works in the sense that if people don't buy, companies change. There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. It just doesn't work IRL.

> There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way.

Nonsense. As a prominent example in tech, Microsoft has become a very different company thanks to seeing their customer base eroding under their old ways. They had to shape up to remain relevant, and I'd say did a decent job of doing so.

As a farmer, the market voted that they want non-GMO soybeans for food consumption, and now that makes the biggest crop grown on my farm. GMO soys would be a lot easier, but I am ultimately beholden to what the customer will pay for. If I don't grow them my neighbour will and with his profits he'll improve his overall efficiency until I can no longer compete with any crop.

Voting with your wallet works just fine. But that, of course, does not mean your vote will win. Like in governmental elections, just because you believe in something doesn't mean anyone else does.

If by "voting with your wallet" you mean passively buying whatever is the best option available to you, sure.

Consumer action doesn't mean that. It means some sort of organised campaign to influence companies/industries by boycotting products or otherwise "voting with dollars. These campaigns never succeed directly.

I really don't think that a large population of the world independently woke up one day and decided, "You know, I don't want to eat GMO soybeans." Those choices have come as a result of consumer action pushing a non-GMO message.

It fails when most people are apathetic to or disagree with the message, sure. That's the nature of voting. You won't always win. You might never win.

People have lots of food choices available, a decent understanding of food, reasonably legible information about ingredients, nutrition, etc.

Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes. Network effects and such funnel usage. Most users don't know policies, nor understand their implications if they are.

I think it's extremely disingenuous, at this point to argue that AMZN, MSFT, GOOG or whatnot are merely a popular consumer choice. In any case, you accept the outcome of elections in a democracy, or maybe even a sports league committee. "Voting" with dollars is an analogy. The people affected often aren't even google's customers. The actual dollars come from elsewhere. In conventional, industrial terms, most users are a resource being transformed into a product with technology. For example, Apple receives money for setting users defaults to Google. Google receives money for advertising to these users. There is no "sour grapes, move on" here. No actual election to adhere to.

Whatever about theoretical voting with dollars, we all know how "voting with votes" would turn out.

> a decent understanding of food

You wonder sometimes, the things they say. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they have an active interest in food? Which goes to show that when people want something to change, they'll take an interest and make change happen. If they are content with the way things are and vote for the status quo, that's their vote to make. Just because you didn't get your way with your inane pet ideas doesn't mean voting doesn't work.

> Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes.

TV, radio, billboards, flyers... There are all kinds of substitutes. Some of which can command a lot of money from their customers because of them providing a proven valuable service. Google and the like may be the best in the biz, but there are a lot of other choices which are quite viable substitutes.

Google even suffered through the "adpocalypse", a period when customers did flee when they weren't happy with what Google was doing. We don't have to invent hypotheticals. It literally happened to them and it forced them to change things about their business to start to win customers back.

Voting works. That doesn't mean you will win.

This "existence proof" line or argument is, IMO, totally disingenuous when applied like this.

If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish.

Adpocalypse was not something that happened to google. It was something Google did to it's vendors, content producers. Google just found a way to increase revenue. They are a monopsony in regards to content producers. So, they get to present a take-it-or-go-be-a-dentist proposition.

In any case, there is no "vote." Actual voting would turn out very differently.

> If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish.

It may not be competitive, but they are also pretty easy to walk away from. I've never been a customer of Google's, and haven't purchased anything from Amazon or Microsoft in many years. What do you really need from them? Not like what would be nice to have, but what do you really need? If you are buying from them it is because you like what they have to offer and are voting for it to continue.

I have no doubt indirectly purchased things from all of those companies and I'm okay with my vote landing that way because the product offered was exactly what I wanted. If it wasn't what I wanted, why would I buy it? That would be silly. I could easily exert pressure on the vendors I do buy from to stop buying from the above if there was a problem. They don't offer anything I truly need either.

That, of course, doesn't mean I'll win if I change my vote. If the problem is only in my mind, nobody else is going to care and the vote will land in their favour, not mine. Voting isn't about an individual. That is where it seems you are confused.

> It was something Google did to it's vendors

The changes Google had to make ultimately impacted its vendors, just as any business changing their ways no doubt impacts its vendors. My transition to non-GMO soybeans in response to consumer demand meant I was no longer buying the equivalent seed from GMO seed vendors. However, the situation all started because Google's product was no longer pleasing to the customers, which prompted the customers to stop being Google's customers until they changed their ways.

> In any case, there is no "vote."

Indeed, there is a vote. You can vote yes (spend your dollar) or you can vote no (do not spend your dollar). The entire public, even children, are eligible participants in the election... Unless they've been voted out, in which case they need to change their ways to be voted back in.

That doesn't mean your choice will win, of course. Voting is not about the individual.

You can choose not to purchase, to an extent. You will likely use Amazon, microsoft and google at work in most industries. In many, avoiding paying them is highly limiting. I suppose you can also avoid paying the post office

Even if you manage to avoid paying them.... good luck avoiding using their sites, sites hosted by them, or collecting data for them. Good luck avoiding their payment systems, communication platforms, etc. This isn't like avoiding Mcdonalds. You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies.

Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic.

I'm not going back to the voting thing again. It's beyond stupid.

> You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies.

So be it. If we were talking about a governmental election, and "your team" lost, you would also have to disappear to the mountains if you wanted to avoid having to interface with the elected government that doesn't represent your interests. More likely you'll just suck up the loss. That's what elections entail... They are not about the individual.

> Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic.

In reality, Google wouldn't last long if a large swath had a problem with them. The fact of the matter is that they offer a compelling product that many people want to use. You might not want to, but your minority position means that you've lost the election. Suck it up or move to the mountains, I guess, because the vote isn't about you as an individual.

Monopolies of this sort can be problematic in that they can cause people to become blind to alternatives. If what Google offers is good enough, you're not compelled to look elsewhere. And when everyone has settled on the same good enough, there isn't someone else in your ear saying "You should check out X! It is even better than Google." This keeps the votes coming in for the incumbent.

But if Google were to become no longer good enough, people will quickly start to look for X and vote for something else. Google already had exactly that happen when they were coupling their product with "unsavoury" content, which scared away customers who didn't want to be associated with such content. They had to change their policy to win back the votes.

Voting works. That doesn't mean you will win.

This is as true as sad. This kind of centralization of power will end the world we know. Information asymmetry enforces itself automacically. What a bunch of sheep we are. Including the high paid henchmen of power reading this.

> Information asymmetry enforces itself automacically.

If that were a universal rule, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment could never have happened the way they did.

True. But it is more often so than not. For example women were actively kept from being equal, to quite some extent by not educating them equally. Also the ages of feudalism were quite long until something finally changed.

I think this problem doesn't really lie along the axis of centralization of power. Google is taking on policing power because the actual police are more or less absent on its platform (because of technical competency and complex jurisdictional issues). Is that an example centralization or decentralization? It's a little of both.

The real problem, IMO, is best described as "public power in private hands."

It’s also largely the state deputising corporations to do law enforcement without judicial oversight. We have seen this in banking for years where banks have become liable for the misdeeds of their clients and are effectively applying an over-cautious approach of aggressively investigating and banning clients, that makes the most zealous stop-and-frisk policies look mild in comparison. You live in a world where you cannot not have a bank account, or a smartphone, or an email address.

That's an interesting dystopia. Using the same lens, I can see similarities between Google and other pioneering companies of the past such as the East India Company (EIC) which sported its own army and ruled large parts of the British Empire.

Other similarities might be market share, i.e. EIC controlled 50% of world trade at its height [1] vs Google's Search being used by 52% of the world in 2019 [2].

That all said, I'm squinting a bit to see this. Unlike Company rule in India [3] where one had little recourse as a subject if the EIC ruled against you; if Google rules against you then you can move to some other provider (of which there are many).

It's still fun to think of these analogies. I was always fascinated by the mega corporation, OCP, in Robocop that sought to privatise large US cities like Detroit [4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company [2] https://review42.com/resources/google-statistics-and-facts/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India [4] https://robocop.fandom.com/wiki/Omni_Consumer_Products

>> Unlike Company rule in India [3] where one had little recourse as a subject if the EIC ruled against you; if Google rules against you then you can move to some other provider (of which there are many).

I totally disagree. Early EIC/VOC rule was lawless. Or rather, the EIC was literally sovereign. They ruled colonies in the same way that monarchies, democracies and whatnot rule. 17th century royal charters devolved power to these companies like they devolved power to colonial governorships or other bodies.

The early EIC is more comparable to the Colony of Virginia, which itself started as the Virginia Company. All technically ruled under a royal charter, but were practically sovereign within their domains.

Later EIC rule was more similar to modern corporate examples. Rule of Law was ostensibly introduced, and you could (in theory) take your grievances to civil authorities. In some ways, this starts to become similar to modern examples of corporatism. The EIC was still extremely big, rich and powerful. But in this later period, state power and state coffers interweaved

Later, British state rule.

I can't quite see what you disagree about but yes all your other points are true - that's correct. Perhaps you missed the bit where I said I was squinting :-)

> Other similarities might be market share, i.e. EIC controlled 50% of world trade at its height [1] vs Google's Search being used by 52% of the world in 2019 [2].

Do you realize how ridiculous putting “number of people using for search” and all of “world trade” in the same comparison is? Google’s 200-300 billion annual revenue is barely 1% of the US GDP.

For a size comparison, you would need to throw all of the FAANGs together, some energy companies, and some banks to reach the inflation adjusted market cap of the Dutch East India trading company: https://dutchreview.com/culture/history/how-rich-was-the-dut...

Of course you can't compare apples with bananas - I'm not daft. I was simply looking for percentage similarity in controlling something (i.e. ~50% of world trade, ~50% of world internet search).

It amusing on how having a little fun with a comment on dystopian cyberpunk can ruffle so many feathers :-p

If both Visa and Mastercard refuse to deal with you, you are basically screwed in today's world.

And then you have articles like this:

https://sweden.se/life/society/a-cashless-society

Where I am really not sure how to feel about it.

The Swedish Central Bank is investigating a eKrona, which would be a state-backed digital currency.

I'm living in Sweden, have no problems with a cashless society in theory, but that it's all in the hands of private corporations definitely makes me unhappy.

Maybe in States, but not in the majority of the world. Definetly not in Europe.

There are plenty of European parts where you cannot rent a car or book a hotel without visa or mastercard.

Meanwhile, for a business, either of these refusing to work with you will likely kill the business on the spot.

The differences between Europe and US corporatism is petty narcissism of small differences.

> book a hotel without visa or mastercard.

Maybe major chains. There are vast numbers of small-holder rentals that happily take cash.

> Meanwhile, for a business, either of these refusing to work with you will likely kill the business on the spot.

It's 100% possible to do business in Europe purely with bank transfer. I've been at it for years and I never interact with either Visa or Mastercard.

small business, sure. big business, no chance.

You are missing the point.

Yes, there are transactions that occur in cash, bank transfer & such. Fail to present a Visa/MC when you rent a car in Dublin or Brussels and you will be in for a surprise. In Dublin, standard practice is to compromise by making you pay a 5X rate... insurance or whatnot. Maybe there is a no-card option somewhere in the city, but it certainly isn't most places.

Yes, you can be an electrician or consultant without accepting cards. No, it is not practically possible to run a store or most customer facing businesses. Even most electricians and consultants accept or at least use cards.

There's no meaningful difference between Europe and the US. This is a powerful and hard to avoid duopoly.

There is a major difference: VISA and mastercard offer credit cards. Not many people use credit cards in Europe, they are all debit cards. Most stores I know do not accept credit cards at all, you have to have a debit card. You can easily refuse someone credit and scrap their credit card. It is a lot harder to deny someone access to their savings.

Most international (and even local only) european debit cards are owned or serviced by Visa and Mastercard. A store isn't denying people either Debit or Credit. It's only denying them bananas & laundry detergent.

This is totally tangential, but I would actually argue that denying someone access to their credit is not that different. Credit is what money is. Our European attitudes towards debt and credit is intensely responsible for our two tier system. Credit for the rich. Debit for the poor. Policy debate about where and how the border between these two should be.

I wonder if it differs across Europe. In the UK at least, you are very right. Debit cards run via the visa and mastercard networks and every store that accepts debit cards also accept credit cards.

German banks are stubbornly clinging to their Giro cards, much to the inconvenience of iPhone users. The cards are usually Maestro-compatible, but domestic transactions use the domestic system.

I'm sure the privacy aspect of it must be very tricky; Apple collects a lot of information when using Apple Pay, and I can imagine that German banks might be hesitant to share such granular details.

Here in NL Apple Pay works fine with a lot of banks -- and they're still just Maestro cards.

I suspect that it's related to the high degree of decentralization. Sparkasse and Volksbank are each federations of hundreds of independent local credit unions. You can do business with them if you accept that the standard interchange fees and conditions are set in stone, but if you want preferential treatment, you need to negotiate with every local member bank individually.

I'll go out on a limb and assume that the standard fee structure does not afford wallet manufacturers a per-transaction fee.

I think the point being made is about banned by your region's major payment processing corporations, not specifically Visa or Mastercard.

Any statement about a "majority of the world" would need to apply to India, China, and the African continent to be true. In China being banned from Alipay or similar would presumably have the same or even worse effect. India's attempt to go cashless some years back disproportionately affected those without plastic or digital payment cards, further emphasizing the point.

I don't know too much about payment systems in Africa but my understanding is that mobile payment services have been heavily adopted and if a major payment corporation in the region banned an individual it would have a drastic negative effect on their livelihood. If corporate-issued payment devices are easy to do without in Europe it would seem to be the exception, not the rule.

> Definetly not in Europe.

Denmark and probably other Scandinavian countries almost never deal with cash any more. Everything is by card (Visa) or MobilePay (an app connected to your card)

If the card would stop working you would have a hard time.

When you pay by card in a Norwegian store, you probably use a card that supports BankAxept (since 1991). In that case the payment will be made through the banks, instead of through Visa. 3 of 4 payments go through BankAxept.

Cards issued by banks will often combine BankAxept and Visa/MC on the same card, so that users don't need a separate Visa card. The terminal will switch to BankAxept if available automatically. This is done transparently, so there are no issues with using it as a Visa card outside Norway.

As a Swede, why don't we have this, it's a good solution for customers and merchants.

There are still some fees involved of course, but they are much lower and typically a fixed price. One article I read says that BankAxept is cheaper than Visa for transactions over 30 NOK (~3 USD), but the information may be out of date.

I realize that what we have in the EU is some regulation to put caps on the fees. It's better than it used to be.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/fees-for-...

Thankfully, there is initiative for digital euro: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/digital_euro/html/index.en.ht...

In Sweden we are super reliant on digital payments and a lot of stores don't even accept cash any more. Most people don't carry cash only digital payments. This simplifies for the stores/restaurants and maybe decreases the risk of handling larger amounts of cash. I love the simplicity of digital payments and not having to bother with change and such. We even have an app called Swish (set up by Swedish banks) that does free money transfer between people and can also do payments to stores.

Every once in a while some pensioner organisation or so starts a debate about them not understanding how to pay their bills via an app and that they can't shop at some stores/restaurants only taking payments via an app (Swish). Some seniors might not have a smartphone or are unable to use it.

But the real and much bigger issue is what happens in case of a crisis. Like a huge power outage or the rolling blackouts that might come this winter depending on how the power situation develops in Europe. Or in case of natural disaster or war. We have historically had a very stable power grid and society so most people don't even think about what they would do if their digital payment methods just stopped working. I don't think it benefits our society that we are unable to make payments without technology.

No, VISA has recently managed to kill Maestro and is taking over. Even the Swiss post bank is now issuing visa debit cards instead of the previous Postfinace cards which only worked in a limited number of ATMs.

Also, Maestro is a Mastercard brand.

In Switzerland it's still possible to buy things online and pay by an enclosed invoice. Twint is a local digital payment system and it is universally accepted, both online and offline.

Twint takes 2% from vendors. This is also why you can't generate a code to have your friend pay you but instead have to enter their phone number since those transactions are free.

In 1-2 years we will have instant IBAN payments, I wonder how long until there is a fee for that as well which is currently free just takes a day.

The EU has a right to basic bank account and debit card. Visa or MasterCard cannot refuse.

That right is not absolute, payment providers can reject you based on laws regarding money laundering and terrorism financing. Not something the average person needs to be worried about however.

> Member States shall ensure that credit institutions refuse an application for a payment account with basic features where opening such an account would result in an infringement of the provisions on the prevention of money laundering and the countering of terrorist financing laid down in Directive 2005/60/EC.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

Another note that companies do not have a right for a bank account. Overcompliance and compliance theater is getting so bad, so that even normal small enterprises are starting to have issues. Banks just do not want to onboard small businesses because the life time value of a small business bank account is negative.

Given the now multi year heavily covered role of payment processors in policing the boundary between sex work and abuse I’m surprised payment is so far down the list in these comments. In the news this month:

- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/02/bill-ackman-blasts-visa-sayi... - https://thehill.com/policy/technology/548279-mastercard-upda...

Getting deplatform by payment processors is existential. Also, of note, they are just the front door to a banking system that is generally necessary for commerce and yet under similar pressure to police:

- https://www.marijuanamoment.net/marijuana-banking-reform-wil... - https://www.aba.com/advocacy/our-issues/cannabis

Perhaps nether is as salient as the news cycles devoted to SWIFT and the norming power that exclusion form it was sure to demonstrate.

- https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60521822

(Specific links are arbitrary pointers into the issues referenced)

Well it's a good time to buy some land and bury your gold then, isn't it.

Those idiots will take themselves down sooner or later.

Yeah, this is horrific, but it's what people are willingly subjecting themselves to.

If you don't rely on these systems you aren't subject to them.

That's why heavily regulated banking is so important. Banks need to answer to the people. It's the price for being allowed to integrate into society in such a fundamental role.

>The only way for you to stay alive is to hike to lawless desert city of "Kowloon 2.1"

And this would be the best thing that ever happened to you.

We aren't far from that future.

People here in this forum have enabled it, are enabling it and will continue to enable it. HN only have itself to blame when this happens.

> It is not so hard to imagine a near future where corporations have much more power than states

Quite hard to imagine for me. Corporations don't have an ideological framework underneath ("we the people..."), so they are going to get overpowered any time push comes to shove.

Where would this push come from?

Congress fed up with how corporation treats citizens? Some unions?

The only thing I could imagine is the other corporation. Not much more.

But corporations do have ideological underpinnings, and not just the generic ones that underpin capitalism. Look at the below mission statements:

To organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful - Google

To enhance the lives of our people, members, customers, and the communities in which we trade - Co-op group

Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together - Facebook

To support national and international security policies that protect those who are defenseless and provide a free voice for all with a dedication to providing ethical, efficient, and effective turnkey solutions that positively impact the lives of those still caught in desperate times - Blackwater

I would argue all of the (along with the generic maximizing shareholders value obviously.) are concrete expressions of specific underlying ideologies. Roughly speaking these are that information should be universally accessible, corporations should benefit not just their shareholders, the world would be better if we were all one big family (very dubious!), and being a mercenary is fine as long as you're an "ethical" mercenary, whatever that means.

That we often don't see these as ideologically motivated statements is just because they are all, to a greater or lesser extent, in line with the dominant ideologies of our time, capitalism and liberal democracy.

Who is indispensable for an ideological campaign to succeed in the 21st century, or can choose to make it fail? The media, so again, corporations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com