If there is, they’re hiding it well. Can we have some examples, apart from possibly Apple? Would you agree that almost all VC/angel investment in Silicon Valley goes into surveillance/tracking/profiling-based startups/companies or companies that will exit to such companies?https://twitter.com/dangillmor/status/1002471735248195588 …
Oh, Apple’s not pure and no multibillion-dollar corporation is your friend :) (https://twitter.com/aral/status/1002447258699419654 …) But it’s also impossible to ignore that they do have a different business model to Google, Facebook, etc. (https://ar.al/notes/apple-vs-google-on-privacy-a-tale-of-absolute-competitive-advantage/ …).
-
-
They do, today. They're also collecting a massive amount of data about their users and some future Apple management is going to use it.
-
Couldn’t agree more. The true alternatives must be ethically-funded (from the commons for the common good), retain control of their social missions (no exits/equity capital), and commit to making decentralised, free/open, interoperable everyday things. https://ar.al/notes/encouraging-individual-sovereignty-and-a-healthy-commons/ …
-
What regulation could create an incentive for companies to prefer zero-knowledge data status, or at least prefer to delete rather than keep it once they've done what they need at the outset?
-
I don’t believe we can via regulation. We can use regulation to limit the abuses of surveillance capitalists but the way to encourage ethical alternatives is to fund them. That’s what we’re not doing. Even in the EU, our taxes are being spent to fund surveillance capitalism.
-
I think we need both. Create incentives that make companies not want the hold the data in the first place, too.
-
Exactly: regulate the abusers, fund the alternatives. Regulate & Replace. The two go together.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.