Or you know stop doing that.
I expect that's what they want. Oauth logins could be regulated by government in a similar fashion to mobile spectrums and it won't be easy for competitors to pop up.
Los Angeles is breaking new boundaries in this arena!
What would be your strategy for holding a mirror to these people and to make these jobs undesirable?
Why don’t we call out bank employees for all the fraud and deception leading up to the 2008 crash? Car makers and oil companies employees for polluting the earth? Farmers for allowing run off into rivers? Pharma employees for relentlessly jacking up prices and pill mills poising countless people?
The reality is most employees have virtually zero impact on the direction of their company. The Zuckerbergs of this world will retreat to their private island estates in Hawaii till any backlash blows over.
Probably a bad idea though, we should just keep assuming that the founders lucky enough to reach critical mass will do the right thing for the world even when they are incentivized not to.
a lot of people complain about those all the time. In Iceland they even put them into prison.
>The reality is most employees have virtually zero impact on the direction of their company
I don't think that's true. Software workers, in particular at those large companies in senior positions wield quite a lot of influence. It's right that they're not owners of the firm, but they're in short supply and they command a lot of power. That said, even your average lowly developer has a very simple choice to have more than zero impact. Don't help them build these systems.
Although I do feel for those who began at Google when they still ascribed to the Don't Be Evil mantra -- at some point you have a responsibility to look around you and recognize the work you're doing has become part of the problem.
We (rightly) don't go after Northrop Grumman engineers when the US decides to bomb Yemen. Put down your pitchfork and show some compassion.
"JuSt StoP MakinG Bombss"
Nobody civilized wants to "go after" them of course, but make no mistake - it's not something you'd want to brag about while overseas if you're trying to make friends.
This is true even in friendly places like Europe, Canada or Japan. Make of that what you will.
Those engineers could decide to build similar tools at a company that does not aid, you know, genocide. Those engineers could also decide to not continue working for a company that normalizes mass surveillance.
When you decide to work on your awesome things at companies like Facebook and Google, you are propping up megacorps that harm society, and that's your choice.
Regarding compassion, I'm looking forward to the next mass walkout of Facebook engineers, condemning the spread of hate and violence that their employee enables.
You’re both right, but your argument is one logical jump away from “they were just doing their jobs”
Older guy, mid 50’s maybe, gets on and says “oh are you a googler?” Me: “Are you? Him: “Yeah I’m in XXXX group” Me: “That’s disgusting, Google is an evil company and you should quit”.
Dude was visibly shocked, and I got off the elevator and never saw him again. If more people told the employees of surveillance capitalism company’s just how terrible they are for working for them they’d have a lot harder time recruiting.
Original Google said “Don’t be evil”, and the employees stood up for the integrity of the company when needed.
Now, Alphabet as the large company did not bring over that motto, and in fact Google has now removed it.
And if the things we see publicly are accurate, the employee’s faith in Google is shaken.
The alternative is "Oh, you work at Schutzstaffel? That's cool!". That he has done is morally correct.
This is a nice sentiment, but probably not possible given the reality of the interconnected nature of everything. The tech generally 'needs' the internet to work.
The issues are:
1) FB requires your so-called 'real identity' which is something fundamentally different than an e-mail address.
2) Related to 1, they ban a lot, for various reasons. Those things nee to be disentangled.
I wonder if the US/DE regulators are going to be smart enough to do something specific because if their redress is too wide, their going to put a zillion businesses in a very grey area.
Thoughtful clarity would be nice.
Imagine if a car I'd bought stopped working because I stuck a 'Find my lost cat' poster up somewhere it wasn't supposed to be.
Most things these days are service-related and absolutely need 'accounts'.
Like your XBox.
Occulus will invariably require some kind of 'account'.
'Accounts' are not evil.
Of course online stores require accounts, but those are not required to use the hardware.
Downloading games is greatly enhanced by accounts.
Playing most games require accounts.
Banning cheaters effectively requires accounts.
It's 100% perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with it.
The hyperbole here gets really tiring after a while.
No it does not. Most games are not multiplayer games and don't require accounts.
> Downloading games is greatly enhanced by accounts.
It's greatly enhanced by accounts _with the application vendor_ not the device manufacturer. I'd be quite upset if AMD required an account to be able to download Steam games. I _was_ quite upset when a(n offline only) game I bought on Steam required a Games for Windows Live account I didn't was.
> There is nothing anti-privacy about an 'account'. Someone having an arbitrary email address doesn't constitute a breach of privacy.
I said anti-consumer, not anti-privacy. Online only is also cancer, which is what requiring an account effectively is.
But you absolutely should NOT need an account to use your Xbox.
...until the entity wants forms of payment. Then you've got to keep that random sequence of characters for your life unless you're willing to part ways with your purchase.
No, your statement doesn't reflect the reality that companies do treat emails as identities.
Even though we all of that choice, almost none of us care to do it.
Finally, it has nothing to do with control over hardware.
Most of the time, that "need" is entirely artificial - or at least not the only way to design the device.
So Facebook is essentially subsidizing the cost of an Oculus headset initially and making up the profit on ads data. Similar to the console business of selling the hardware at or below cost and making it up in the games sales.
... in the old days, things were distributed on punch paper.
... then floppy disks became an excellent medium of distribution.
... then CDs became prevalent.
... later DVDs came along and provided lots of distributable content.
... some games distributed content with DVDs.
These days though... there should be nothing wrong with distributing your content via a USB or microSD card.
Other than, you know, that whole "oh my gawds my copyrites waaaaaa"
Or just a file. No need to produce more plastic trash.