shaicolemanMeta Platforms: Lobbying, dark money, and the App Store Accountability Act
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...
https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings
These discussions remind me so much of the US discussions about federal ID documents as verification.
There's a vocal portion of people which opposes any solution because "privacy, government overreach, surveillance ...". So instead of a solution like e.g. zero-proof age verification, that tries to minimize intrusions on privacy, the result is the worst of all worlds, maximum surveillance (but I guess it's ok if it is not the federal government, but meta), with minimum utility. Just look at the freaking mess that is trying to proof your identity in the US.
When I hear this argument ("better the government do it than a private company") I recoil. The government is sovereign, only accepts lawsuits at its discretion, and can use violence to get its way. We also know for a fact that it abuses its powers and conducts surreptitious unlawful campaigns against its citizens.
I'm not on board with any of it, but the last thing I want is the government to control it.
When the government is working as intended, and have not abdicated their duties to the people, the government at least has controls over what they can and cannot do. Yes, they have a monopoly on violence, but they also in theory have lots of controls.
For example, the government cannot silence your speech, but a private company can. The government cannot share your data with others, a private company can.
Unfortunately the government has abdicated their duties and so you think they are worse than a private company.
I get all of these hypotheticals, but, again, we know that it's not true. The government routinely collects and shares information that it shouldn't. We can't talk about it like it doesn't because it was designed not to. We have to contend with reality.
But we also know that Meta routinely collects and shares information that it shouldn't.
At least the government shouldn't on a theoretical level?
I don't understand the fascination with pretending. System A is bad. System B is worse. System B theoretically shouldn't exist yet it does and there's nothing you can do about it, so now you're advocating for B. What's the rationale?
Systems A and B are equally bad in practice.
System A is that way by design . System B is that way despite the intended design.
They're not equally bad. You can disagree, but you'll have to convince me by argument. I've already laid out mine.
I think we already laid out our argument too. A private company can do whatever they want with your data. They can sell it, exploit it, and block you from accessing it.
The government can do none of those things. They can't deplatform you. They can't exploit your data or sell it. They can't block you from it.
At least by design.
By design, having the government responsible for verifying your identity is far superior than having private companies do it, because by design they have to be truthful and forthcoming.
The flaw is that the system is failing and so right now the private system and government system are equally bad.
I agree with everything you said when considering your caveat that the government needs to act lawfully and in good faith. I also appreciate that you have probably dealt directly with similar matters. Since the government has demonstrated that it won't comply, though, I am unwilling to go in that direction, and I guess in that way we see it differently.
We might just not have the same government. I'm not American and to me this isn't a failure of government as a concept, but your government as an implementation, if that makes sense.