Why are Big Tech companies a threat to human rights? | Hacker News Reader

Why are Big Tech companies a threat to human rights?

amnesty.org

53 pointsHotGarbage21 comments

I feel as though they kind of ignore "tech companies" in China, Russia, India, Iran, etc., who probably do worse things regarding human rights. If nothing else they should state that at the outset given they speak of "the global majority" where the technology companies they mention have either none or limited penetration.

The title indicates the article is specifically about big tech companies.

There are none of those from China, Russia, China, Iran.

I presume technology companies from those countries are used in support to authoritarian governments, but that sounds like a separate issue of how "big tech" as we understand it operate.

There are big technology companies in those countries. They may not have the reach with the exception of TikTok which has reach into the west.

I take issue because they bring up big tech influence into geographies outside “the western world” but big tech has little penetration there and they should pint that out.

When I read "Big Tech" with this casing, I think of companies such as MS, Meta, Google, Amazon, etc. Maybe I do have a faulty understanding of the term?

Perhaps TikTok is the closest thing to that outside of that group.

I find it lacking that the report doesn't mention TikTok or X / Twitter. TikTok has been used for manipulating voters in Europe.

The "why" question isn't answered. The answer is that big tech seeks (and its owners/shareholders demand) unending profit growth, and when human rights (privacy, etc.) or anything else get in the way, profit takes precedence.

There are some exceptions, but the overall trend is clear.

> They also buy up competition and enforce rules on other companies that make it difficult for competitors to thrive.

The article is quite sparse with sources/specifics, so let me back up this claim :

While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... (It was surprisingly difficult finding any reporting on what should be a major story.)

Lobbying, regulatory capture, network effects, bundling, dark patterns - these are the anti competitive pieces that suggest big tech should be both broken up and regulated more heavily

Network effects are not entirely bad since they can benefit users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

there was a lot more innovation with the local dial-up DSL networks for sure! It was cheap, fast, high quality service, with a human you could contact LOCALLY.

Wow, an article about human rights lost credibility before I could even read the headline. They put up their mandatory (for their marketing) cookie banner, the "settings" page uses a dark pattern where the optional cookies are already off so clicking them would turn them on, and the only buttons are "Accept Recommended Cookies" or "X". Oh look, the article includes a section about our right to privacy, how compelling.

You can track readers and the spread of your content AND decry the the unfair market powers and advantages big tech has simultaneously.

Big tech is shaping public discourse. Big tech is censoring public squares. Big tech is forcing us to continue buying new devices. Big tech is killing open standards and platforms. Big tech is hurting democracy. Big tech is enabling monitoring. Big tech is using societal scale antipatterns to generate more profits than most countries. Big tech is engaging in anti-worker practices ...

Until you click the "accept" button, you haven't agreed to accept any cookies, so if you instead click through to settings, it shows you the current state: cookies off. I think the toggles could be a bit clearer, but I don't really have a problem with it.

Having worked at AI (a long time ago), I can assure you this isn't some mastermind plot to sneak a couple of cookies onto the computers of the one or two people who click through to settings.

A prominent "Deny" button is mandatory by privacy law (at least in Europe). It is missing.

It's not if the state without any button click is "Deny".

It's a common juxtaposition on topics like these and happens frequently on larger news sites too. Often the author is not in control of the actual websites.

That shouldn't be taking away from the messaging and certainly not a reason to lose credibility with something orthogonal.

Amnesty has long since squandered any credibility they once had

Why?

I second that. Why?

At least in my country, the amnesty only acts against left wing politicians and governments, you can literally compare similar cases or even worse that they intentionally don't emit no judgment, report or whatsoever

That's weird I have somehow opposite experience. I came from Europe and amnesty here usually agitate for foreign political prisoners or local unjustice. Some more crooked politicians of course hate them for obvious reasons but overall they are absolutely good actor.

I just wondering, would you mind to share from which part of the world you are for some context?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com