advertisement


Facebook vs World Governments

thebiglebowski said:
So just so it's clear you'd rather allow pedos, people smugglers and far right extremists go unchecked than see the Police and security services be helped in their roles.

Not a very socialist outlook, just goes to show that those on the extreme left are just as fundamentally selfish and dangerous as those on the extreme right.
Click to expand...

it's as if human civilization and ethical philosophy began 20 years ago. if you really want to make your extreme claims, you first have to back to magna carta and then the enlightenment and explain to us how the chain that began there and ended up with western democracy is fundamentally wrong.

we have chosen to make certain trade-offs for the sake of human liberty and protection from tyranny. as a collective, we are better off that way. your "reasoning" is narrow and authoritarian.
 
it's quite remarkable that we have people here who think government should have secrets and citizens should not.
 
Tony L said:
Again I’d argue that if they had to appear in front of the HoC then logically they should also be forced to appear in brutal dictatorships like Saudi, Iran, Syria, Russia, China or wherever and be forced to hand over information that could end up with people we would consider perfectly innocent (LBGTs, atheists, journalists, political activists etc) being imprisoned or murdered. To be of real use a global communications medium needs to exist well above the petty jurisdiction of nation states.
Click to expand...

I'm rather less keen than that on large international corporations feeling they are above the law and beyond scrutiny. If they don't want to operate in the UK, fairy snuff. But if they do, they should be subject to UK law for what they do in the UK. I'm not a fan of billionairs thinking their position makes them supermen.

Given that we are - at least so far! - a democracy of sorts, I can't see that they'd have the same problem appearing here as in some other places. This also starts to raise in my mind the question of tax. If they make money from what people in the UK let them know, and facilitate propaganda here, why don't they pay tax on this?

Do you really think Zukerberg regards the UK as being no different to China?
 
vuk said:
it's as if human civilization and ethical philosophy began 20 years ago. if you really want to make your extreme claims, you first have to back to magna carta and then the enlightenment and explain to us how the chain that began there and ended up with western democracy is fundamentally wrong.

we have chosen to make certain trade-offs for the sake of human liberty and protection from tyranny. as a collective, we are better off that way. your "reasoning" is narrow and authoritarian.
Click to expand...

Arkless Electronics said:
I'd prefer to see all crime and terrorism double than see the surveillance continue!
Click to expand...

I assume you support and endorse Jez's statement then? Jez has also clarified that he stands by his statement.

Everyone has the right to privacy but the security services also have a right to ensure that people are kept safe. As it happens I'm against any form of facial recognition being used by the Police on UK streets and don't have any objections to people using VPNs or encryption.
 
thebiglebowski said:
I assume you support and endorse Jez's statement then? Jez has also clarified that he stands by his statement.
Click to expand...

yes, i stand behind the general principles.


thebiglebowski said:
Everyone has the right to privacy but the security services also have a right to ensure that people are kept safe.
Click to expand...

we were managing pretty well before computers and internet allowed for the scale of surveilance we have now.
 
vuk said:
we were managing pretty well before computers and internet allowed for the scale of surveilance we have now.
Click to expand...

Well sure we were. But once we had the computers and internet we had to surveil all of that. Because crappy apes.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Do you really think Zukerberg regards the UK as being no different to China?
Click to expand...

I’m sure he doesn’t, but that doesn’t impact the fact he runs a global site that can’t possibly adhere to every differing free speech and privacy law of every nation state on earth. His only realistic attempt is to attempt to moderate to market demands (i.e. what the majority of his userbase want).

As an example I run this little audio forum, I live and pay my tax in the UK, the site is hosted in America and it is visible anywhere on the planet that has internet access. I am an atheist, and whilst I try to be relatively polite towards those who have religious beliefs, I really have little time for it. That mindset could have me hanging by my neck from a crane or my head detached in some parts of the world. Should I really be expected to face such “law” just because I run an internet site and expressed an opinion, or worse merely hosted opinions of others? Conceptually that is what you are asking of Zuckerberg.

FWIW I’d describe myself as an anti-nationalist. I do not respect arbitrary borders and irrational laws and see myself far more aligned to a global mindset and if you like a ‘citizen of Earth’. I like the fact the world is becoming more joined up and the internet is a huge, huge part of that. I like that it conceptually exists at a far higher level than petty nationalism. World Federation please!

PS This may also help explain why I am so fundamentally opposed to Brexit!
 
thebiglebowski said:
Is this a serious comment?
Click to expand...

It's more to point out your statement about VPN and encryption was a bit rhetorical. Anything that is potentially dangerous needs some form of regulation, the question is what is the correct balance between oppressive surveillance and freedom to the point of anarchy?. For instance one of my young relatives is a teacher and mentioned that certain subjects searched on school computers have to be reported to the authorities, when I pointed out that this was the kind of behaviour the stasi carried out and they were viewed as the bad guys I was met with blank looks.

Should extinction rebellion be monitored? Big oil has has a lot of power, it's not difficult to see how an overly oppressive state can do considerable harm, even in the UK.
 
Tony L said:
I’m sure he doesn’t, but that doesn’t impact the fact he runs a global site that can’t possibly adhere to every differing free speech and privacy law of every nation state on earth. His only realistic attempt is to attempt to moderate to market demands (i.e. what the majority of his userbase want).
Click to expand...

But that doesn't justify the 'reason' you deployed for him refusing to appear before a committee of the HoC. And he doesn't run a 'global site' because that's a contradiction in terms. He runs a site *from the USA* but uses it to extract profits from people *around the world*. If he was 'global' he'd be paying UK tax on his profits from UK users.

If he "can't possibly" be held accountable, why should it be "possible" for him to exploit us without any check?

if you want democracy, Tony, events show that we really do need to deal with this one way or another. My suggestion is to mandate transparency and accountability. So we can the *all* decide what we think best. Not allow secrecy to cover the abuse and distortion of our democracy because it suits a *commercial* interest to profit from it.

I'd suggest that such matters should become a part of 'trade agreements' between countries. Thus between us and the USA. But of course Trump would tell us to s0d 0ff because of 'America First'. However until we tackle the WTO, etc, such examples of international corporate 'above mere national law' behaviour will continue to grow - to the detriment of us all.

Is that really what you want to allow? If not, then what's your alternative solution?

In short: Sorry, the UK isn't China. So trying to say he can ignore us just like he might ignore China isn't of any moral weight. It just uses corporate excuse number one: "We do it because we can get away with it". Which in other areas we then deal with by law including requiring the relevant disclosures. Or by simply forbidding some kinds of acitivity or type of product.

I can't agree that becoming a billionaire running a 'global' corp makes you a God who is above mortal law or accountability. Though it seems clear that some in the position come to feel it is the case.

If you want democracy to survive, you, like the rest of us, will need to deal with this, and face up to the way 'capitalism' has changed.

BTW want to bet that as China rises and the USA may decline, FarceBook, etc, will deal with China on a lofty god-like "we are global" stance just as they treat us? Or may they decide it is good business to tack a bit?...
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
if you want democracy, Tony, events show that we really do need to deal with this one way or another. My suggestion is to mandate transparency and accountability. So we can the *all* decide what we think best. Not allow secrecy to cover the abuse and distortion of our democracy because it suits a *commercial* interest to profit from it.
Click to expand...

I think in many ways we are arguing the same thing, you are just describing it as ‘transparency’ with an implied non-profit motive (which I personally don’t view as realistic), I am saying commercial is fine as long as it responds to customer/end-user pressure when it comes to setting its AUP criteria and censorship, which I do feel Facebook is doing, though it is clearly struggling to scale to ever new usage scenarios.

PS First I first want a proper proportional democracy in the nation I live in, which we clearly do not have at present! I do not want increasingly minority and authoritarian governments going anywhere near the internet! I hate to say it, but I trust Mark Zuckerberg and other tech giants infinitely more than any number of Boris Johnsons, Theresa Mays, Preti Patels, Jack Straws, David Blunkets etc. We should value access to platforms that are free to use, encrypted, and authoritarian right-wing assholes like these can not access.
 
.....it's not so much about trusting Zuckenberg, as mistrusting his employer, Facebook corporation. They are ultimately controlled and driven by the needs of their shareholders, who include banks, insurance companies, governments, all solely with a profit motive. Transparency is never good for profits.

The markets own Facebook and no one here seems to trust them.
 
Tony L said:
I think in many ways we are arguing the same thing, you are just describing it as ‘transparency’ with an implied non-profit motive (which I personally don’t view as realistic), I am saying commercial is fine as long as it responds to customer/end-user pressure when it comes to setting its AUP criteria and censorship, which I do feel Facebook is doing, though it is clearly struggling to scale to ever new usage scenarios.

PS First I first want a proper proportional democracy in the nation I live in, which we clearly do not have at present! I do not want increasingly minority and authoritarian governments going anywhere near the internet! I hate to say it, but I trust Mark Zuckerberg and other tech giants infinitely more than any number of Boris Johnsons, Theresa Mays, Preti Patels, Jack Straws, David Blunkets etc. We should value access to platforms that are free to use, encrypted, and authoritarian right-wing assholes like these can not access.
Click to expand...

I have zero faith in the belief that Zuckerberg is somehow infinitely 'better' than BloJo, etc. His work has been *aiding* them and their backers. And we didn't find out about it because he exposed them. He isn't a superman - despite the ultra-rich assuming "only little people pay taxes".

How do customers know what to apply 'pressure' *about* if they are prevented from knowing what the company is doing? Leaving it to them is 'devide and rule'.

Why do you presume it is OK for the company to hire, say, 10,000 people to read messages, look at closed groups, etc, but *not* for Government to do so? Who ensures *all* those 10,000 people are honest and act as you or I would wish? The more people he takes on, the more chances there are that one will vector some other kind of dirty business. And using 'AI' is a trap given that all too often it is 'AS' (Artificial Stupidity) so itself needs monitoring.

So far as I can see, the only reliable solution is a transparency requirement. If they take your data to sell to someone else, you should know who, and what that someone else will do with it, and have to approve. Even if no-one else sees this, does *you* should when it is 'your' info. But then, if they only tell you, how do you know they are telling the truth if they won't even *appear* before a committee to answer general points?

You can cut this however you like, but "above all law" combined with secrecy really isn't compatable with a free and democractic political system. Indeed, if you read Mason's work it seems likely it also will break 'capitalism'. Which some might cheer, but then wonder if this is a case of "keep a tight grip of nurse, for fear of something worse"...
 
flatpopely said:
So it's OK for individuals to track police but not the other way around?
Click to expand...

It levels the playing field somewhat and I approve of that.

People should watch "The Capture" for a warning of what can happen.. yes it's "only fiction" but the tech used is pretty much all now extant!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top