Hacker News Reader

Comment by soco | Hacker News Reader

Is this a trickle-down style of argument? Or that corporations are holy? Or that they always have the job takers interests at heart? Or that the elected representatives are elected by the 16% who don't want stronger privacy laws? I'm confused.

View on HN

>Or that the elected representatives are elected by the 16% who don't want stronger privacy laws?

This one is closest. Said companies hire lobbyists to always be in the ear of politicians. For example, here are the recent bills that Google has lobbied on. Note that most of them are about privacy.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/bills?c...

They also give large donations to politicians when they're campaigning. Or the opposition if the candidate isn't willing to play ball. This is all completely legal, as long as its disclosed.

It's clearly a "corporations are holy" kind of argument, where it's implicit that if one breaks down the oligopoly that is oppressing the market and disallowing innovation, the entire economy will go down, since the oligopoly is the entire economy.

But I don't think the OP noticed that.

This is not a personal belief, merely an observation. Given past and present behaviour of the US govt., it's apparent that corporations receive a rather light touch. By comparison, the govt is much harsher with individuals guilty of the same behaviour. This is perhaps not just economic but also strategic: The corporations are often brand ambassadors of the "American Way Of Life" at a global scale. It's soft power.

It's some weird system. The corporations pay powerful people to say people need them, otherwise there wouldn't be jobs; then the people listen and believe. All while those powerful people have an excuse for accepting money and protecting the corporations.

Anyway, if you think Google or Facebook are good "brands" for the US, you've got way too much exposition. The Hollywood propaganda works great, that big-co one doesn't.

A brand's worth is based on how many people know about it. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Disney, Tesla, etc. etc. are some of the most well-known brands on the planet. Globally, they consistently rank at or near the top. You don't have to take my word for it [1]. Step outside your bubble and do your own research :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_valuable_brands

> A brand's worth is based on how many people know about it.

If that was true, people would be constantly trying to impersonate famous recent criminals you find on the news.

Confusing fame and noteriety is a common problem, except they aren't the same thing. Not to mention copycat crime is definitely a thing. Your point is moot.

I think the argument is that people say they care about privacy, but they really care about money. Online privacy laws will cost at least some people some money, and those people vote too. And their representatives know they vote.

I believe you're correct.

At the same time, we allowed the problem of economic harm to grow worse by not dealing decisively with the problem of online privacy from the outset. For this same reason, an argument could be made that ripping the bandaid off now would be less painful than in the future. (And I'm not blind to the amount of pain this would cause. I realize that what I'm advocating would decimate our own industry.)

Then on the other hand there's the argument, that has apparently found the most resonance, that letting online privacy whither on the vine is the logical way to go. Good or bad, these privacy invasions are funding a sizeable chunk of the economy. I can see people thinking it's nonsensical to get rid of 10% of the nation's jobs. Especially when it's the exact 10% of jobs likely to pay the most.

I'm a privacy advocate, so I fall on the "burn it down" side. But I do understand the other side of the argument. I just think right now, at about 10-12% of the economy, decimation of the tech industry is survivable. If we wait, it could be 20-30% of the economy, at that point, pro-privacy actions would effectively be completely off the table.

So you think over 10% of the economy is working on the advertisement industry? Isn't that number at least a little bit hyped up? I also cannot imagine how we, lacking targeted advertising, would eat less or buy less.

I believe it's an argument for representative democracy instead of direct democracy. I feel that representative democracies allow for unpopular things to happen (e.g. taxes), if the alternative means the economy or country crashes. I'm not an expert in this field.

It's none of those. It's a representative considering the interests of multiple stakeholders and acknowledging the deleterious effects that well-intentioned legislation can have. If these issues were black and white, the solutions would be easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com