
Tech Giants, Once Seen as Saviors, Are Now Viewed as Threats - elsewhen
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/technology/tech-giants-threats.html
======
Bartweiss
The wording of that title is _very_ interesting. It's a perfect example of
'bureaucratic style'[1].

First, the passive voice. This is an article about people looking at tech
giants, but the passive voice centralizes the companies. That associates the
change with companies, not observers, and also makes the claim seem more
objective by downplaying the fact that this is about potentially-inaccurate
perceptions.

Second, the missing subject. This goes beyond indefinite pronouns to fully
_absent_ pronouns; who's doing the seeing and the viewing? Since the best
answer is "writers like me at media outlets like this one", it makes sense
that it wasn't mentioned.

Third, the acausal and discrete setup. Things used to be that way, now they're
this way, these are just states of being without a transition or source. Lest
someone notice that David Streitfeld has built his career promoting exactly
this transition, and is perhaps not simply reporting on a change he observed,
the title directs attention away from what shaped perception.

And to be fair, it's just a pithy title, and there's a whole article here.
(Although many of these approaches continue throughout.) But it's an
interesting thing to analyze how the distinction between "people see this" and
"this is reality" is blurred so aggressively in so few words.

[1] [https://longreads.com/2017/04/12/the-elements-of-
bureaucrati...](https://longreads.com/2017/04/12/the-elements-of-bureaucratic-
style/)

~~~
convexfunction
Seriously, this is the first thing I thought when I saw the title.

> Yes, tech giants are now widely viewed as threats, lots of attention is
> invested into having negative valence about technology companies. Why do you
> think that is, Journalist For The New York Times?

------
rdlecler1
You can’t deny that these platforms are in an emergent self-winner-takes-all
oligarchy of sorts. Take LinkedIn and Google for instance. LinkedIn allows
Google to have full search access to the site and that’s beneficial to both
LinkedIn and Google. However, if I want to spider LinkedIn to MVP my way to a
new application they’ll lock me out. In effect, Google has monopoly as does
LinkedIn, which owns the data. Because LinkedIn is already free and ubiquitous
it benefits from network effects that create a strong competitive moat from
new threats. Both companies have a kind of without either engaging in explicit
anti-trust behavior and they even reinforce one another’s monopoly.

~~~
DannyBee
"However, if I want to spider LinkedIn to MVP my way to a new application
they’ll lock me out."

Can you explain how this is different than how it has always been in the non-
tech world?

For example: Home depot has deals with various partners to display their
inventory and sell their products. But if i want to go into the stores and
track the inventory and scan prices myself, they'll kick me out of the store.

You can even make this purely physical if you like, too. If i start a store
that doesn't even compete with costco (different target markets), but start
recording their prices/etc, they'll also kick me out.

The usual response is "well, linkedin collected a bunch of data from users
that they don't own and is now using it to make a business, and won't let me
reuse it". So?

That's also a thing that has happened since time immemorial, it's not like
databases of this nature are new. They just got easier. Before you couldn't
even make a product at all!

What you are saying applies, IMHO, everywhere. It's basically a complaint that
existing businesses won't let you co-opt them to get ahead, and may not be
willing to partner with you. That's not special to any of the tech companies,
or tech, or, well, anything.

~~~
fragmede
Attitudes like this is why the promise of the Internet since the early days,
limited to academic purposes only, has been lost.

Because you're right - secret backroom deals and corruption are so common as
to be _assumed_ in the physical world to the point of non-competitiveness. Say
I want to start a home improvement supply store. Well there's already Home
Depot, Lowes, and OSH, so unless I have a secret and exclusive source for free
lumber, I'd be crazy to even try, given all the deals that Home Depot has that
guarantees it'll never die.

So? Is moving non-digital collusion between big businesses to the Internet
really the _best_ we can achieve?

Strive for better. Stagnation is bad, tech or non-tech. Everyone's noticed how
Google searching's gotten less useful, or that Facebook (for the "olds" that
still use it) is more annoying than useful these days. The Internet should be
enabling _better_ businesses by promoting competition, not stifling it.

Naive? Intentionally so. (Every freemium startup has an enterprise "contact
us" plan, but I choose to believe that's because enterprise customers want
someone to talk to over the phone.)

Hopeful? In spades, not bought from Home Depot.

~~~
RestlessMind
> Is moving non-digital collusion between big businesses to the Internet
> really the best we can achieve?

Unfortunately, yes! Thats because the Internet is just a tool and those who
use it (i.e. us) haven't changed fundamentally since the advent of that tool.
So why would you expect a tool to achieve a different outcomes?

If you want different outcomes, let's try changing human beings; more
specifically, let's devise ways to mitigate greed, envy and jealousy.

------
debatem1
From the article: "Their amount of concentrated authority resembles the divine
right of kings"

Call me when Apple starts exercising prima noctis. I'm pretty sure Google
can't wage war, either, and if Oracle could hang you for theft they would've
done so by now. So unless I'm missing something maybe we should lay off the
hyperbole a bit?

~~~
pokemongoaway
Yes, but they work closely with government - and moreover government
intelligence agencies - so government can leverage their help to do these
things. There's plenty of evidence this has already happened.

~~~
dlp211
[Citation Needed]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

~~~
LambdaComplex
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_\(surveillance_program\))

~~~
pokemongoaway
See project veritas and wikileaks as well.

------
vacri
> _Ross Baird, president of the venture capital firm Village Capital, noted
> that when ProPublica[click-through link] tried last month to buy targeted
> ads for “Jew haters” on Facebook, the platform did not question whether this
> was a bad idea — it asked the buyers how they would like to pay._

Clicking through to read that article[1], it's clear that the categories were
created by an algorithm rather than a human, and when reported, were removed
without fuss. The way the main article phrases it is highly misleading.

The click-through article also says that while "Jew Haters" was a group that
could be selected, it was too small to buy a targetted Facebook ad for by
itself. They added a few more 'jew-hating' categories, and a few 'Hitler'
categories, and the target demographic was _still_ too small. So they ended up
adding the category for a small extremist political party in Germany. At this
point, the target demographic was big enough to allow them to buy a $30 ad.

Painting this as "Facebook is facilitating the rise of antisemitism just for a
buck" is _extraordinarily_ disingenuous.

[1] [https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-
advertis...](https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-
to-reach-jew-haters)

~~~
nl
_the categories were created by an algorithm rather than a human, and when
reported, were removed without fuss._

I think that's the point:

a) Automatic categorization means offensive categories will be created

b) It takes a complaint to have them removed.

 _The click-through article also says that while "Jew Haters" was a group that
could be selected, it was too small to buy a targetted Facebook ad for by
itself. They added a few more 'jew-hating' categories, and a few 'Hitler'
categories, and the target demographic was still too small._

It is unclear to me why the fact that this particular phrase was too small to
buy for means it isn't a problem. The fact is you can target ads based on it,
even though currently you also need to buy other groups.

Additionally:

 _The Daily Beast, which briefly ran its own ad campaign to test the company’s
tools, says Twitter’s platform shows 18.6 million accounts “likely” to engage
with the word “Nazi,” while another 14.5 million users might be drawn in by
the N-word. For Twitter, the process seems entirely automated and there appear
to be no safeguards in place — The Daily Beast tried a number of different
hateful words and phrases and none were blacklisted by Twitter’s tools._

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/15/16316352/google-
twitter-a...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/15/16316352/google-twitter-ad-
targeting-anti-semitism-racism-facebook)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The Daily Beast, which briefly ran its own ad campaign to test the company’s
> tools, says Twitter’s platform shows 18.6 million accounts “likely” to
> engage with the word “Nazi,” while another 14.5 million users might be drawn
> in by the N-word.

Keep in mind that "engage with" includes everyone who takes offense to them.

> Automatic categorization means offensive categories will be created

This is like saying that an automatic printing press means offensive
literature will be created. And rope causes lynchings.

Someone said this in another thread -- "algorithms" are the new "chemicals".

The most absurd part of this isn't that people are astounded that generic
tools can be used for specific evils, which has been happening for many years.
It's that people seem to _want_ corporations the likes of Facebook to be in
charge of making political decisions.

~~~
nl
It's interesting. On the "Our minds can be addicted" story the HN consensus
seems to be 'yes and it is a problem'. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15421704](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15421704)

Yet transfer the same issue to this context and it suddenly becomes a free
speech thing.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Because it's two sides to the same coin. The problem isn't which decision
Facebook makes. It's that Facebook, like governments, should not be in charge
of this.

~~~
nl
So who should be in charge of it?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Nobody is supposed to be in charge of it. A central planning commission is not
a thing that should exist.

~~~
nl
I guess the point is that Facebook has a responsibility to stop this
proactively, not just make money off it until someone complains.

------
wallace_f
>"[...] Russian interference"

The amount of cognitive dissonance and double think one must embrace to read,
not an op-ed, but news article in the NYT.(1)

I don't even support Trump; I oppose him, but I'm not willing to indulge in
the groupthink here. Maybe there was interference, probably even, but how can
we be sure when the stories we are being fed keep falling apart? Just another
in a long string of "just trust us" claims from the Deep State?

1 - [https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-
russia...](https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-
falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/)

~~~
eli_gottlieb
You don't support Trump, but you're willing to swallow the notion that the
United States has a "deep state" unironically? Come on. Go find me the
mukhabarat or other secret police in the USA.

~~~
notyourday
"Deep State" is another name for bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a state within a
state and its main purpose is to protect itself.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VveTsyjFlNA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VveTsyjFlNA)

------
amelius
Why can't Tech Giants just deliver, you know ... tech?

Why do they need their prying eyes on our data?

In the old days of the internet, companies provided the hardware, and
universities designed the protocols (which were federated), and ran the
software.

~~~
delta1
It seems their tech doesn't pay their bills quite as well as advertising?

~~~
colmvp
It certainly doesn't help when people don't give a shit.

Billions use the service that Facebook and Google provide without much of a
care about how their data may or may not be used.

It's hard for me to blame Google/Facebook when we voluntarily sold our
information to them and continue to do.

------
cirgue
Captains of industry become robber barons. The same thing happened with
Microsoft, AOL, and Oracle.

~~~
TwoBit
How AOL?

~~~
adventured
That's a pretty far reach re AOL.... However, AOL went from being a small,
scrappy upstart service provider to being the 800 pound gorilla that wielded
increasingly significant media power, in just the span of 5-7 years. One
moment they were subservient to the classic media powers, smaller than a mid-
size magazine publisher. The next, they were lording over the media powers as
a larger, potentially more powerful corporation worth $220 billion with tens
of millions of subscribers (and it sure looked like they were going to get
much larger). In the media world, AOL was just starting to become as feared as
Microsoft was broadly when they purchased Time Warner. That completely shook
the media landscape. This is mostly forgotten now, because that position
lasted for only a few years. AOL at its peak, was starting to near Microsoft's
financial position circa 1995-1996 or so. Their stock went from $7 to $175 in
two years from 1997 to 1999. Their revenue went from $425 million in 1995, to
$4.77 billion four years later ($762m in net income, with $1.1b in cash from
operations) - nearly unbelievable growth for anything consumer Internet
related at the time. Just as they arrived at burgeoning juggernaut status, it
all began to unravel.

~~~
colejohnson66
Not entirely related, but to comment on how big AOL was: I once heard that AOL
sent out so many CDs that more than 90% of all CDs being produced in _the
world_ were for AOL

~~~
creaghpatr
There was a period in the late 90s where every other box of cereal had an AOL
CD taped to the box.

------
rixed
I was hesitant to trust a direct competitor of the Tech "giants" about how
dangerous they are.

But ten minutes ago, the Google app store recommended that I install Firefox
Focus that is a direct competitor of Chrome and that, by blocking ads, may
hurt Google main source of incomes. Beat that, non-tech giants!

------
williamle8300
All centralized power structures will transform into threats. The future of
information technology will be in decentralization/anonymity... not
centralization and always-public models.

~~~
HarryHirsch
_The future of information technology will be in decentralization
/anonymity..._

That's what they promised us back then: "The Net interprets censorship as
damage and routes around it." Now, instead of Usenet we have Reddit, instead
of email we have Google and Microsoft, and instead of bookstores we have
Amazon. Even Bitcoin is centralized.

~~~
gtcode
How is BTC centralized? Someone did decent research on this:
[https://news.21.co/quantifying-
decentralization-e39db233c28e](https://news.21.co/quantifying-
decentralization-e39db233c28e)

~~~
zdkl
You can get people representing >50% global mining power in the same, small
room.

------
drharby
Nytimes sure is posting a lot of literature talking smack about SV

------
known
Pyramid schemes?

------
sanatgersappa
and their use is purely optional.

~~~
pokemongoaway
I don't understand why so many people feel the need to chime into
conversations with these types of comments.

"There's lots of rapes in these neighborhoods at night" \-- well women don't
need to be wearing suggestive clothes or walking around without males

"There is illegal surveillance" \-- well I don't have anything to hide

"There are a bunch of companies who are arguably degrading the fabric of
society" \-- that's not my experience

"A problem exists" \-- it doesn't apply to every person

~~~
closeparen
People who organize self-righteous outrage mobs to ban whatever is "degrading
the fabric of society" this week have a habit of doing more damage to society
than whatever it was you thought you were protecting it from.

When self-righteous outrage mobs believe they have moral authority and are
drumming up support for authoritarian interventions is when it's _most_
important to challenge them forcefully. Even if an intervention is necessary
in the end, it should be the product of a healthy debate and not an outrage
mob railroading through its initial whims.

~~~
musage
How is "but it's optional" a forceful challenge or a healthy debate?

~~~
closeparen
It isn't - it's lazy and inarticulate - but pokemongoaway is complaining about
the general theme of people challenging the scope or severity of a problem.

There is a pretty significant difference between "$villian is doing $bad_thing
to people" and "$villian is providing people the option to do $bad_thing to
themselves and they are taking it." That's worth pointing out, particularly
when $bad_thing is to read opposition news.

~~~
musage
It's nowhere near that clear cut.

[http://www.radiohamburg.de/Nachrichten/Deutschland-und-
die-W...](http://www.radiohamburg.de/Nachrichten/Deutschland-und-die-
Welt/Panorama/2017/Oktober/Es-ist-wieder-soweit-Langenscheidt-kuert-das-
Jugendwort-2017)

One of the "unwords" nominated for 2017 is "sozialtot". That's "socially dead"
as a synonym for not having a Facebook account. As for Google, when everybody
has their email at google I can craft my packets by hand, Google will still
slurp them up. But oh, it's all optional, that goes without saying so it has
to be said all the damn time.

> particularly when $bad_thing is to read opposition news.

You don't even know if "and their use is purely optional." refers to even one
word more than the headline. If it does, you don't get to pick and chose that
conveniently. The article also contains sentences such as

> All of them are making decisions about who gets a digital megaphone and who
> should be unplugged from the web.

Where does people doing something to themselves even figure into that? We're
still at that part where someone blamed the victim and you're contorting to
excuse that as something noble at heart, if lazy and inarticulate.

