Comment by prox
4 years ago
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?
4 years ago
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.
It also fits with Google able to undo your Google account...
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.
Anti-trust laws are enforced by the state, which is a legitimate concentration of power.
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 we should shame all the users of Google products, in this case? I'm not sure that shame really works like that and especially when (I assume) there are billions of people using the same products. There's a somewhat lower number of entities controlling the company -- maybe a more effective target.
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.
Google isn't a government entity, it's a private company. Had there been more restrictions on what tech corporations (and corporations as a whole) could do, power could have been limited by the concentrated power of government. The issue here is that Google can dictate how we live our lives so heavily without any of its users having a say on how Google and its services should be run. The promotion of Laissez-faire capitalism here in the US promoted Google's growth into it's current position.
4 replies →
Shame concentration.
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.
> 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.
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.