SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[...] tech companies are under fire for creating problems instead of solving them. At the top of the list is Russian interference in last year's presidential election. Social media might have originally promised liberation, but it proved an even more useful tool for stoking anger. The manipulation was so efficient and so lacking in transparency that the companies themselves barely noticed it was happening.
The election is far from the only area of concern. Tech companies have accrued a tremendous amount of power and influence. Amazon determines how people shop, Google how they acquire knowledge, Facebook how they communicate. All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who should be unplugged from the web.
Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine right of kings, and is sparking a backlash that is still gathering force.
Is it that the tech companies are creating problems for society as a whole, or merely disrupting the status quo for the old Powers-That-Be?
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday October 14 2017, @06:17PM (5 children)
Power is not money; but money is power. It is not infinite power, and sometimes it is power that must be very well understood to wield effectively, yet it is definitely power.
Some things don't respond to power - again, this kind of power is not infinite. Propaganda, even well-funded propaganda, has severe weaknesses in any context where information flows relatively freely. So there are issues where attempts to sling the shite simply fail regardless of the individual or organization trying to sling it, or the financial leverage they put behind it. Trump, for instance, has huge power, but squanders it by constantly lying in such a way that he is bound to be caught, as well as being so profoundly inarticulate that he can be ridiculed with impunity by any high schooler. The governor of Kentucky just spouted some easily proven falsehoods about pot overdoses that turned his bully pulpit into a clown show. Etc.
Some power comes from politics. That power is temporary, or at least, some of it is. If said power is wielded in certain ways, it can result in monetary gains. If wielded poorly, it can result in negative outcomes monetarily and otherwise. As always, power is generally a neutral thing until it is used. But using it doesn't mean things will go your way. Sometimes it just means you bring yourself to other people's attention more effectively (and that may mean you're more likely to get squashed.) Money... again, it's neutral until you use it.
Saying "money is power" is wholly accurate, even though money is not a guarantee of results, particularly when managed poorly. Think of it like a gun. If you aim it at your target, it multiplies your power in a way that you'll likely find to be "good." If you aim it at your foot, it's still very much a multiplication of power, but you won't like the result if you fire the thing (cough, Trump, cough.)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday October 15 2017, @10:56AM (3 children)
All of which isn't really an argument, just another way of choosing to view power dynamics. Frankly, a less useful and correct way of choosing to view power dynamics. Money, while it can be exchanged to leverage temporary power, lends zero power by sitting quietly in your pocket; all it lends is a larger pool of possible solutions to any given problem.
Consider Clinton vs. Trump. Clinton, had she won, would currently be getting damned near everything she ever wanted out of Congress while Trump can't even get those sharing the same party affiliation to stop arguing long enough to pass a bill. Both have tons of money but only one has access to useful power in the necessary context.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:09PM
So you missed this bit:
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:22PM (1 child)
Also:
No. People will modify their actions simply because they know more money is available to the other party.
Would you challenge a party to a court battle on an inconclusive issue when their pockets were deep and yours were not, knowing they can bring more lawyers, wear better suits, see that more time is spent on the golf course by "someone" with the judge, see to the judge's re-election and/or other interests, and his/her family's other interests, and otherwise indirectly influence the outcome? That's power - real power to influence others well before it has to be spent. If you do knowingly go to court against such opposition, you'd better be very, very sure that the issue will go in your favor. Otherwise, you saw the power, and you ran your head right into it anyway.
Another low-hanging fruit: Those looking at someone for a prospective mate will change their evaluation based on financial status.
Etc. Circumstances of similar import exist all over society.
Simply having money can influence many types of outcomes. It doesn't always have to be spent. Which is not to say that spending it doesn't change outcomes; of course it may.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 19 2017, @11:38PM
Granted but almost exclusively among women. Men overwhelmingly marry down or across. Women overwhelmingly marry up. It's an evolution thing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 15 2017, @11:43PM
"Saying "money is power" is wholly accurate"
Being "wholly accurate" is a quest that 500 page dissertations rarely manage to find even remotely within their grasp, and you presume that your one phrase is something close?
Bwah hah hah! Go the fuck back to twitter.