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 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.