> i absolutely do not magically trust billionaires just because they’re from the US… and i certainly don’t trust them more than i trust any government. there’s reasonable arguments that they’re more dangerous than governments. after everything we’ve seen these social media titans do, it’s absurd to trust them.
What does it mean to "trust" them?
Right now you are on hacker news, a social media site which is owned by ycombinator and is run by a board of some billionaires. What are you doing here reading the articles on the front page and posting comments??
i’m not sure which part confuses you—it means what i said. i don’t magically trust them more than i trust any government. if the collective We have decided we don’t trust governments with algorithmic manipulation powers, why on earth are we trusting anyone with concentrated power: billionaires, churches, governments, etc…
it would seem We have deemed social media to be incredibly dangerous. i’m not yet personally convinced it is, but We apparently decided already. so why are we ignoring other wannabe kings wielding something we deem dangerous?
>if the collective We have decided we don’t trust governments with algorithmic manipulation powers, why on earth are we trusting anyone with concentrated power: billionaires, churches, governments, etc
This is a crazy extrapolation.
The sale/ban of tik tok was forced because the US government/people do not trust a China owned company. That is not simply extrapolated to, "oh well if we don't trust the CCP, how can you trust any government or institution ever?"
There are an awful lot of Chinese products that are not illegal, what specifically about TikTok are We concerned with?
It isn’t because it’s a pair of pliers or a notebook. it is because it has been decided it is too dangerous for that government to wield against society. again, if it’s too dangerous for them, why is it magically not too dangerous for the wannabe kings behind US social media companies?
they have at various times,
1) been caught manipulating citizens,
2) outright admitted their desires to strongly influence politics
3) refused to cooperate with elected officials investigating abuse
4) actively resisted any kind of oversight
so again i’ll say, im not convinced it is truly this dangerous, but We have declared that it is terrifyingly powerful. if it is this dangerous, it should absolutely not be in the hands of people who have already proven time and time again they’ll use it against us and really don’t want any oversight or transparency of their actions.
What does it mean to "trust" them?
Right now you are on hacker news, a social media site which is owned by ycombinator and is run by a board of some billionaires. What are you doing here reading the articles on the front page and posting comments??