Comment by deepdriver
4 years ago
"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signals 'something not desirable.'" --George Orwell
4 years ago
"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signals 'something not desirable.'" --George Orwell
Yeah also think the word/concept fascism doesn’t fit here. While it is obviously oppressive or unjust, it is a company, so what would be a better fit?
If the government allows them to become a virtual monopoly/ doupoly, then it's possible one could see the abuses as indirectly government sanctioned. At least in so far that the company has integrated automatically with the law enforcement flow and that integration has flaws that will lead to the same sort of undesirable ham-fisted authoritarian enforcement. It also allows the government bypass search restrictions by simply buying your data.
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").
>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.”
Fascist. Historically, the definition fits perfectly.
Libelous
unaccountable
That does fit Googles profile in various matters.
1 reply →
It's literally capitalism. It's the system that Google was allowed to thrive in and become this powerful.
Power concentration is inevitable regardless of the system because in order to enforce decentralization you would need to, well, concentrate power.
Our best bet is to shame those using products of unethical companies.
8 replies →
At least to me, it seems quite appropriate to characterize the autocratic merging of government and corporate power as "fascism". Yes, it's missing some specific trappings of the original fascists, but definitions adapt and widen over time.
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?
That seems more fitting. Authoritarian seems also very fitting and fits the definition of limiting options for civilians in favour of the state/or it’s organisation.
Moreover, there is evidence that Google (along with Twitter and Facebook) frequently take actions to suppress opposing views on behalf of, and in collusion with, one side of the US government, including removal of information from one side and amplification of misinformation from the other.
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.
1 reply →
This quote is taken out of context FYI. Here is the full version:
"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"