[RD] Are tech companies baby-eaters??

[inthesomeday]

I am specifically talking about child labor when I say baby eating

 

[Lexicus]

Oh I see what you mean. Yeah I don't think much of that goes on in the West though I doubt there is zero.

 

[civvver]

People have a natural right to the data they produce. Google, Facebook, and Amazon should be turned into public utilities.

Well right, but people sign away those rights in terms of use on facebook, google etc. The problem is really a lack of an alternative, not necessarily that the companies are doing it. For example, congress rolled back some legislation that prevented your isp from selling your use data. Now they can do it, but the need your consent, however they can make the consent mandatory as part of your service contract. So basically let them sell your data or no internet. Since most households only have access to one broadband isp, what's the choice?

Google and facebook are easier to deal with, you just have to make sure anti trust is strong enough that there is another choice. Physical lines like isps are harder, maybe they should be utilities.

Well, it's easy to overlook how that you need to put data on harddrives and harddrives need to be stored somewhere. Note that all these corporations are active on private land. It was not allocated based on need, rather, on their ability to pay for it. And they are building data centres on it.

Yes, exactly. The internet started as all open because it was government funded. Then we got into the 90s and it was handed over to private enterprise. Of course anything private enterprise does needs to involve profit, otherwise people can't get paid for their work or attract investors. That's why we have all these closed systems, cus to profit off something you need to own it.

The government I guess could've made a ton of fair use servers paid for with tax dollars. That's one way to tackle it.

Or they could've forced more open technologies so you the user can host your own data on your own pc. It has enough storage space for your own stuff, there's no reason it has to be in the cloud constantly. It just is cus that's the protocols that were developed so corporations could own access and charge for it. It's just the model that evolved.

And unfortunately we have decided that corporations have the right to own, sell and otherwise distribute that data however they want. I keep repeating myself on this but it's atrocious the amount of power we have willingly ceded to corporate interests. If the government tried to do these sorts of things people would be up in arms about their freedoms but when a company does it we collectively shrug. It's disgusting.

Because the government is terrible at marketing. The corporations have done an excellent job of convincing the masses that this is all for their convenience and to make their lives easier. And for the most part, they have delivered on that promise which has created this weird sense of trust among the masses for these corporations. What people are failing to think about though is this: Sure, things are being done "for our convenience" now, but what happens when the corporations we've ceded all these powers and rights to start using all this tech for their convenience?

I suppose, but again, you sign terms of agreement. Two problems, there's no alternative really cus again we are so lax on anti trust, but also cost. Consumers want to have their cake and eat it too. It's like when they say they only want made in america stuff but want to pay chinese prices. If facebook didn't make money off selling your info it would have to be subscription based. Same with google probably, and no way amazon prime would only be ~$100 a year.

A super specific example of this is that new movie pass service. It used to be like $50 a month, but their new ceo came in and said let's lower it to $9.99 or whatever. They lost money on your subscription cus they still have to pay full price for your ticket. They lose money sometimes on the first ticket you buy! So why do they do it? Cus they think your movie going habit data is worth more and they can make profit by selling that data. That's their model and they have said very plainly it's their model.

So question is, would you rather pay a higher fee or let someone sell your movie viewing habits?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh, it goes a lot further than just "their supply chains incorporate it." The degree to which the tech companies are themselves active drivers of labor abuse and fraud is often understated even in 'woke' takes on the problem. For example, Apple demands phones and components at prices it knows will drive its suppliers to commit fraud and abuse their workers. Amazon savagely exploits its workers right here in the US of A.

Of course, this thread is about the tech companies specifically and this problem of Western multinationals with massive market power using that market power to encourage criminal behavior is not specific to the tech sector.

Oh yeah, does anyone else remember when Google and Apple were caught conspiring to suppress wages by refusing to poach off of one another? The CEO's were literally emailing each other to coordinate their informal agreement. It was disgusting and they got a slap on the wrist at best.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh yeah, does anyone else remember when Google and Apple were caught conspiring to suppress wages by refusing to poach off of one another?

Got a link? Apple has been engaged in any number of price-fixing conspiracies. A few have even been litigated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/14/14924904/apple-russia-price-fixing-iphones

This is a really good article on how Apple 'selected for' fraud via the prices it paid to suppliers of phones:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/apples-ethical-blindness-_b_1244410.html

The concept is obviously widely applicable to other supply chains.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation