5 ms·

Yeah, financial and social pressure is basically the only weapons we have against corporations when regulations don't exist. And honestly, financial pressure do

Yeah, financial and social pressure is basically the only weapons we have against corporations when regulations don't exist. And honestly, financial pressure doesn't work at this scale or in this case.

mwint 3y ago
Regulation is just social pressure enforced by guns.
jjoonathan 3y ago
Yes, but this will be an uphill battle. Every campaign must be financed, so every politician must effectively be vetted by monied interests. The same monied interests that we see here on a strategic offensive against the rest of us. Regulators will tend to be sympathetic to them, not us, until things get really bad. Is EFF still the place to send money?
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I think so. I don't know of any better.
  - nequo 3y ago
    Are they actively pursuing WEI? Is there anyone who is?
hartator 3y ago
> when regulations don't exist It’s very likely governments will make this mandatory if they have the chance to regulate over this.
- kevmo 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - tmpz22 3y ago
    Which executive orders, federal appointments, and other executive branch actions, would you attribute to Eric Schmidt?
    - docmars 3y ago
      From this article: "At the same time, Schmidt has been appointed to numerous White House advisory positions, giving him privileged insight into the administration’s policies in technology, science and military defense, as well as unusual access to top policymakers." https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/eric-schmidt-obamas-chief-corporate-ally https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/eric-schmid... A quick Google of "eric schmidt obama" brings up a lot of articles discussing their close political relationship.
      - signatoremo 3y ago
        And that makes him “shadow president” how? Was he the one with the most access as opposed to, says, David Axelrod?
        docmars 3y ago
        I don't want to put words into the OP's mouth with regards to his assertion about Schmidt, but given the loose wording: "basically shadow president", it's fair to say it isn't meant literally, and it usually comes with a negative connotation and to imply that Schmidt was so deeply involved, from a standpoint of strong biases in favor of Google and the obvious potential for corruption in participating as an advisor to someone (Obama) who doesn't have the same grasp on technology — and the extent and length of Schmidt's involvement throughout Obama's terms. It could be said that Schmidt disproportionately influenced important decisions in the tech realm, to a degree nearly equal to executive authority, because it presumably (and greatly) outweighs the opinions of the other heads of Big Tech, so long as Obama was naive enough to agree with him on key issues he didn't fully understand. This is especially damning in light of the NSA / Prism scandal during Obama's term, and Big Tech's involvement and compliance with that. Of course, anyone could assert this about an advisor to a President depending on the President's level of knowledge and outright willingness to apply their advice, even if in spite of fairness (competition), rights, laws, or precedents.
varelse 3y ago
[dead]
xeonmc 3y ago
Speaking of regulations, I think an angle that can help spread awareness to the general public is casting this as essentially being the equivalent of SOPA/PIPA but being pushed by Big Tech rather than Big Gov.
amalcon 3y ago
If you live in a representative democracy, and Google has a presence there, contact the offices of those representatives. These things don't always seem like they matter, but sometimes they do. Big tech generally (and Google specifically) is a pretty popular target right now -- seemingly worldwide and across most ideological divisions.
- docmars 3y ago
  This is true, but I think the main issue is whether people are quick enough to call for congressional hearings and decisive actions / lawmaking that would have any impact before it's too late. It's a race to the finish, and big tech companies always have the advantage. Of course, that doesn't mean regulation couldn't call for a reversal on what's been implemented. The other side to this issue is despite the scrutiny towards big tech, they can still lobby and make any regulatory actions seem effective, when in practice, they've already gotten their fingers into influencing policy in such a way that doesn't ultimately address the consumers' concerns.
api 3y ago
Financial pressure won't work because you are not Google's customer. Google's customers are its advertisers.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  And you are the customers of those companies advertising. That's leverage, too.
alexb_ 3y ago
Financial and social pressure are the only ways you convince anybody to do anything that isn't biological.

mwint 3y ago

Regulation is just social pressure enforced by guns.

jjoonathan 3y ago

Yes, but this will be an uphill battle. Every campaign must be financed, so every politician must effectively be vetted by monied interests. The same monied interests that we see here on a strategic offensive against the rest of us. Regulators will tend to be sympathetic to them, not us, until things get really bad. Is EFF still the place to send money?

Brian_K_White 3y ago
I think so. I don't know of any better.
- nequo 3y ago
  Are they actively pursuing WEI? Is there anyone who is?

hartator 3y ago

> when regulations don't exist It’s very likely governments will make this mandatory if they have the chance to regulate over this.

kevmo 3y ago
[flagged]
- tmpz22 3y ago
  Which executive orders, federal appointments, and other executive branch actions, would you attribute to Eric Schmidt?
  - docmars 3y ago
    From this article: "At the same time, Schmidt has been appointed to numerous White House advisory positions, giving him privileged insight into the administration’s policies in technology, science and military defense, as well as unusual access to top policymakers." https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/eric-schmidt-obamas-chief-corporate-ally https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/eric-schmid... A quick Google of "eric schmidt obama" brings up a lot of articles discussing their close political relationship.
    - signatoremo 3y ago
      And that makes him “shadow president” how? Was he the one with the most access as opposed to, says, David Axelrod?
      - docmars 3y ago
        I don't want to put words into the OP's mouth with regards to his assertion about Schmidt, but given the loose wording: "basically shadow president", it's fair to say it isn't meant literally, and it usually comes with a negative connotation and to imply that Schmidt was so deeply involved, from a standpoint of strong biases in favor of Google and the obvious potential for corruption in participating as an advisor to someone (Obama) who doesn't have the same grasp on technology — and the extent and length of Schmidt's involvement throughout Obama's terms. It could be said that Schmidt disproportionately influenced important decisions in the tech realm, to a degree nearly equal to executive authority, because it presumably (and greatly) outweighs the opinions of the other heads of Big Tech, so long as Obama was naive enough to agree with him on key issues he didn't fully understand. This is especially damning in light of the NSA / Prism scandal during Obama's term, and Big Tech's involvement and compliance with that. Of course, anyone could assert this about an advisor to a President depending on the President's level of knowledge and outright willingness to apply their advice, even if in spite of fairness (competition), rights, laws, or precedents.

varelse 3y ago

[dead]

xeonmc 3y ago

Speaking of regulations, I think an angle that can help spread awareness to the general public is casting this as essentially being the equivalent of SOPA/PIPA but being pushed by Big Tech rather than Big Gov.

amalcon 3y ago

If you live in a representative democracy, and Google has a presence there, contact the offices of those representatives. These things don't always seem like they matter, but sometimes they do. Big tech generally (and Google specifically) is a pretty popular target right now -- seemingly worldwide and across most ideological divisions.

docmars 3y ago
This is true, but I think the main issue is whether people are quick enough to call for congressional hearings and decisive actions / lawmaking that would have any impact before it's too late. It's a race to the finish, and big tech companies always have the advantage. Of course, that doesn't mean regulation couldn't call for a reversal on what's been implemented. The other side to this issue is despite the scrutiny towards big tech, they can still lobby and make any regulatory actions seem effective, when in practice, they've already gotten their fingers into influencing policy in such a way that doesn't ultimately address the consumers' concerns.

api 3y ago

Financial pressure won't work because you are not Google's customer. Google's customers are its advertisers.

JohnFen 3y ago
And you are the customers of those companies advertising. That's leverage, too.

alexb_ 3y ago

Financial and social pressure are the only ways you convince anybody to do anything that isn't biological.