I agree with the overall view but, corporations with more power than states is the wrong frame, IMO.
What we're seeing here is symbiosis, not competition. Google empowers (overpowers) the state and the state empowers Google. It's state action that required and legitimised automated & invasive "crime detection," while requiring and legitimising underlying the underlying data collection and privacy invasion that forms a pillar of Google's ad business.
Google's lobbying and advisory efforts, and their position as a big competent partner empowers the state. When citizens lobby them to "do something" to protect children, they go to Google to borrow their power.
"Centralisation" is too zeitgeist and has the wrong connotation, but it's close. "Convergence" is probably a better term. Actual tensions between State(s), Google and say Apple are minor compared to symbiotic reinforcement.
We're seeing one small element of Google-powered policing here. The totality is likely much broader, and law enforcement is and will be very dependant on this. Apple make more (at a 100% profit margin) selling Google their defaults than they (or anyone) could possibly make competing.
I could argue that the State is becoming irrelevant as laws controlling corporations are written by the same corporations (through lobbying and general involvement as an "experts of the field"). These laws are written not only be serving the corporation but also making the corporation blameless.
So it is not a symbiosis per se but rather complete overtake of host (State).
State becoming irrelevant makes politics a reality show.
While this is a very popular cynical view, it simply doesn't explain much. Corporations would like many many things that are not happening, because certain groups of people want otherwise. (Eg. cheap immigrant labor, less restriction on building, lowering of tariffs, repeal of the Jones Act.)
Though you could say that protectionism benefits a lot of companies, but a decrease in it would benefit more (and bigger ones).
By the time it explains more it will be too late. This is a prognostication - a warning about where we're headed. It's a caution sign by a trailhead leading to a washed out bridge.
It's really obviously symbiotic if you look at any level of detail.
Old leftists see it as corporations taking over the state. Conservatives see it as the state taking over corporations. Meanwhile, it's extremely obvious that both are complicit and that they grow to rely on each other in quickly inextricable ways.
This article is about Google doing police work: surveillance, analysis, investigation. It is only one example, a detail within a larger framework. Now, privacy focused competition represents an interference with critical police work.
Meanwhile, Google is highly involved in drafting legislative detail about how copyright is implemented. How liability for platform usage is implemented. Etc.
The state is not irrelevant at all. Politics might be a reality TV show, but that's always been the case.
>Conservatives see it as the state taking over corporations.
But this is false. Corporations are and always will be exclusively answerable to their shareholders. Whereas the state can have any loyalty depending on who is controlling it
Shareholders are pretty happy under a system in which the corporation benefits from tax breaks and loopholes, fat government contracts, favorable legal environments, carve-outs for regulation exemptions, regulations that make entry into existing markets prohibitively expensive, etc.
The counter view is that we are all becoming to apolitical and the world is becoming too fuzzy/overcomplex in our view, so that our traditional political system can cope with them. The thesis, antithesis, symbiosis mechanism described by Hegel has produced a great blur of least bad options for the majority (some being at least really bad for a few) . It would be up to the intellectuals to at least develop a more inclusive antithesis. I am only seeing hyper-capitalist BS as a proposed "radical" option. A revolution needs a good cause...
This is as true as sad. This kind of centralization of power will end the world we know. Information asymmetry enforces itself automacically. What a bunch of sheep we are. Including the high paid henchmen of power reading this.
I think this problem doesn't really lie along the axis of centralization of power. Google is taking on policing power because the actual police are more or less absent on its platform (because of technical competency and complex jurisdictional issues). Is that an example centralization or decentralization? It's a little of both.
The real problem, IMO, is best described as "public power in private hands."
True. But it is more often so than not. For example women were actively kept from being equal, to quite some extent by not educating them equally. Also the ages of feudalism were quite long until something finally changed.
It’s also largely the state deputising corporations to do law enforcement without judicial oversight. We have seen this in banking for years where banks have become liable for the misdeeds of their clients and are effectively applying an over-cautious approach of aggressively investigating and banning clients, that makes the most zealous stop-and-frisk policies look mild in comparison. You live in a world where you cannot not have a bank account, or a smartphone, or an email address.
It's not too far fetched. I have been discriminated with Revolut. With corps it's as simple as who's on the other end of the line. Not very different from TSA singling out person of certain colors. I approached the state to intervene and was simply told it's out of their remit because even though Revolut can operate in the state, it doesn't have the license. By the time you reach to the other end of rabbit hole, it's not worth the hassle.
Voting with dollars works with corps so they are self correcting, in the sense of they want to keep their customer base. But what happens when someone is poor enough to not be their customer? Or they are rich enough to overlook discriminatory behavior of their employees?
In the end invisible hand of capitalism sorts out corporations. But OPs example of a ruined life is totally possible. Yes, state can be more powerful but by the time it reacts, it might be too late.
It works in the sense that if people don't buy, companies change. There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way. It just doesn't work IRL.
> There has almost never been a "consumer action" that organised to influence companies in any significant way.
Nonsense. As a prominent example in tech, Microsoft has become a very different company thanks to seeing their customer base eroding under their old ways. They had to shape up to remain relevant, and I'd say did a decent job of doing so.
As a farmer, the market voted that they want non-GMO soybeans for food consumption, and now that makes the biggest crop grown on my farm. GMO soys would be a lot easier, but I am ultimately beholden to what the customer will pay for. If I don't grow them my neighbour will and with his profits he'll improve his overall efficiency until I can no longer compete with any crop.
Voting with your wallet works just fine. But that, of course, does not mean your vote will win. Like in governmental elections, just because you believe in something doesn't mean anyone else does.
If by "voting with your wallet" you mean passively buying whatever is the best option available to you, sure.
Consumer action doesn't mean that. It means some sort of organised campaign to influence companies/industries by boycotting products or otherwise "voting with dollars. These campaigns never succeed directly.
I really don't think that a large population of the world independently woke up one day and decided, "You know, I don't want to eat GMO soybeans." Those choices have come as a result of consumer action pushing a non-GMO message.
It fails when most people are apathetic to or disagree with the message, sure. That's the nature of voting. You won't always win. You might never win.
People have lots of food choices available, a decent understanding of food, reasonably legible information about ingredients, nutrition, etc.
Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes. Network effects and such funnel usage. Most users don't know policies, nor understand their implications if they are.
I think it's extremely disingenuous, at this point to argue that AMZN, MSFT, GOOG or whatnot are merely a popular consumer choice. In any case, you accept the outcome of elections in a democracy, or maybe even a sports league committee. "Voting" with dollars is an analogy. The people affected often aren't even google's customers. The actual dollars come from elsewhere. In conventional, industrial terms, most users are a resource being transformed into a product with technology. For example, Apple receives money for setting users defaults to Google. Google receives money for advertising to these users. There is no "sour grapes, move on" here. No actual election to adhere to.
Whatever about theoretical voting with dollars, we all know how "voting with votes" would turn out.
You wonder sometimes, the things they say. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they have an active interest in food? Which goes to show that when people want something to change, they'll take an interest and make change happen. If they are content with the way things are and vote for the status quo, that's their vote to make. Just because you didn't get your way with your inane pet ideas doesn't mean voting doesn't work.
> Google (and other tech monopolies) do not have readily available substitutes.
TV, radio, billboards, flyers... There are all kinds of substitutes. Some of which can command a lot of money from their customers because of them providing a proven valuable service. Google and the like may be the best in the biz, but there are a lot of other choices which are quite viable substitutes.
Google even suffered through the "adpocalypse", a period when customers did flee when they weren't happy with what Google was doing. We don't have to invent hypotheticals. It literally happened to them and it forced them to change things about their business to start to win customers back.
This "existence proof" line or argument is, IMO, totally disingenuous when applied like this.
If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish.
Adpocalypse was not something that happened to google. It was something Google did to it's vendors, content producers. Google just found a way to increase revenue. They are a monopsony in regards to content producers. So, they get to present a take-it-or-go-be-a-dentist proposition.
In any case, there is no "vote." Actual voting would turn out very differently.
> If you think Google, amzn, msft or whatnot exist in a competitive marketplace like restaurants and refrigerators.... it's just foolish.
It may not be competitive, but they are also pretty easy to walk away from. I've never been a customer of Google's, and haven't purchased anything from Amazon or Microsoft in many years. What do you really need from them? Not like what would be nice to have, but what do you really need? If you are buying from them it is because you like what they have to offer and are voting for it to continue.
I have no doubt indirectly purchased things from all of those companies and I'm okay with my vote landing that way because the product offered was exactly what I wanted. If it wasn't what I wanted, why would I buy it? That would be silly. I could easily exert pressure on the vendors I do buy from to stop buying from the above if there was a problem. They don't offer anything I truly need either.
That, of course, doesn't mean I'll win if I change my vote. If the problem is only in my mind, nobody else is going to care and the vote will land in their favour, not mine. Voting isn't about an individual. That is where it seems you are confused.
> It was something Google did to it's vendors
The changes Google had to make ultimately impacted its vendors, just as any business changing their ways no doubt impacts its vendors. My transition to non-GMO soybeans in response to consumer demand meant I was no longer buying the equivalent seed from GMO seed vendors. However, the situation all started because Google's product was no longer pleasing to the customers, which prompted the customers to stop being Google's customers until they changed their ways.
> In any case, there is no "vote."
Indeed, there is a vote. You can vote yes (spend your dollar) or you can vote no (do not spend your dollar). The entire public, even children, are eligible participants in the election... Unless they've been voted out, in which case they need to change their ways to be voted back in.
That doesn't mean your choice will win, of course. Voting is not about the individual.
You can choose not to purchase, to an extent. You will likely use Amazon, microsoft and google at work in most industries. In many, avoiding paying them is highly limiting. I suppose you can also avoid paying the post office
Even if you manage to avoid paying them.... good luck avoiding using their sites, sites hosted by them, or collecting data for them. Good luck avoiding their payment systems, communication platforms, etc. This isn't like avoiding Mcdonalds. You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies.
Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic.
I'm not going back to the voting thing again. It's beyond stupid.
> You need to be on John Galt's mountaintop to avoid these monopolies.
So be it. If we were talking about a governmental election, and "your team" lost, you would also have to disappear to the mountains if you wanted to avoid having to interface with the elected government that doesn't represent your interests. More likely you'll just suck up the loss. That's what elections entail... They are not about the individual.
> Sticking to a narrative where Google's monopoly/monopsony represents free choices between free people is idiotic.
In reality, Google wouldn't last long if a large swath had a problem with them. The fact of the matter is that they offer a compelling product that many people want to use. You might not want to, but your minority position means that you've lost the election. Suck it up or move to the mountains, I guess, because the vote isn't about you as an individual.
Monopolies of this sort can be problematic in that they can cause people to become blind to alternatives. If what Google offers is good enough, you're not compelled to look elsewhere. And when everyone has settled on the same good enough, there isn't someone else in your ear saying "You should check out X! It is even better than Google." This keeps the votes coming in for the incumbent.
But if Google were to become no longer good enough, people will quickly start to look for X and vote for something else. Google already had exactly that happen when they were coupling their product with "unsavoury" content, which scared away customers who didn't want to be associated with such content. They had to change their policy to win back the votes.
The state can also send you off to die in a war. It's not as though it is better than corporations. Just different.
And it is no more likely to cater for small minorities than a corporation; it just claims it will. If there's political will then it might happen, just as businesses are started to cater for emerging markets. But there's no guarantee.
What we're seeing here is symbiosis, not competition. Google empowers (overpowers) the state and the state empowers Google. It's state action that required and legitimised automated & invasive "crime detection," while requiring and legitimising underlying the underlying data collection and privacy invasion that forms a pillar of Google's ad business.
Google's lobbying and advisory efforts, and their position as a big competent partner empowers the state. When citizens lobby them to "do something" to protect children, they go to Google to borrow their power.
"Centralisation" is too zeitgeist and has the wrong connotation, but it's close. "Convergence" is probably a better term. Actual tensions between State(s), Google and say Apple are minor compared to symbiotic reinforcement.
We're seeing one small element of Google-powered policing here. The totality is likely much broader, and law enforcement is and will be very dependant on this. Apple make more (at a 100% profit margin) selling Google their defaults than they (or anyone) could possibly make competing.