Mark Zuckerberg the biggest Enemy of free speech

[GoranZ]

Peter Sunde: Everything has gone wrong. That’s the thing, it’s not about what will happen in the future it’s about what’s going on right now. We’ve centralized all of our data to a guy called Mark Zuckerberg, who’s basically the biggest dictator in the world as he wasn’t elected by anyone.
Trump is basically in control over this data that Zuckerberg has, so I think we’re already there. Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong and I don’t think there’s a way for us to stop it.

Pirate Bay founder: We’ve lost the internet, it’s all about damage control now

[mrswdk]

Didn't realize sab did motivational speeches these days.

[notyou2]

So this centralized internet is kind of like communism.....

[karel]

trump has control,lmfao really

[riskllama]

trump has control,lmfao really

so, to recap : karel is ok with his internet provider being able to sell his search history to whoever wants to buy it.

[karel]

trump has control,lmfao really

so, to recap : karel is ok with his internet provider being able to sell his search history to whoever wants to buy it.

it has nothing to do with trump jack ass

[riskllama]

but, you just said "trump has control". lmfao?

[mrswdk]

I thought it sounded like more of a 'bitch please' type response.

Like: 'Trump, in control? Purlease.'

[GoranZ]

No the point is different... The data is centralized, on one place, facebook. So what ever you do you do it threw facebook. This is horrible thing.

The biggest problem is that any search that google will give is more accurate then facebook. On facebook money spend on promoting something and likes count while google makes some filtering according to relevance. On facebook opinion of non-medic has the same value as the opinion of medic when they talk on medical subjects. This cant be correct. This is the sole reason we have Trump as president(if we ignore the fact that Clinton was horrible).

So instead of spreading the truth Zuckerberg's facebook is spreading paid fake informations. And they can be controled by the government.

[Dukasaur]

The biggest problem is that any search that google will give is more accurate then facebook.

I think you're missing the point. The headline said "zuckerberg" because headlines are just a single sound bite.. Reading the actual article, you see he clarifies that the problem is that all data is controlled by the Big Five. (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple).

So drawing a distinction between Google and Facebook is missing the point. Both are equally part of the problem.

[mrswdk]

You mean, all data collected by the Big Five is controlled by the Big Five.

Google and Facebook control some data. Government agencies and universities control other data. Most of the Big Five’s data isn’t useful for anything other than marketing. So why is it scary that they have it?

[Dukasaur]

You mean, all data collected by the Big Five is controlled by the Big Five.

Google and Facebook control some data. Government agencies and universities control other data. Most of the Big Five’s data isn’t useful for anything other than marketing. So why is it scary that they have it?

Data collection is just the tip of the iceberg.

The control of data flow is another major component. If Google wants to make your company invisible, it is, and all the "Search Engine Optimization" tricks on the planet won't make it rise to on anyone's search. We trust that Google is a fair and impartial judge of what sites are relevant to your search, but is it? I certainly don't know for sure. And even if it is a fair and impartial judge right now, will it still be such tomorrow? History suggests that all power will eventually be abused. Even if something is not being abused right now, that doesn't necessarily mean you can ignore the danger.

Ownership is another problem. Every worthwhile new innovation is bought up by one of the big 5. Does that mean there will be no more players at the big boys' table? If you start a tech company, if it's any good it will be bought out from under you. That might be great for you; not so great for people who believe competition is the key to customer satisfaction. If your company is NOT bought up, or you refuse to sell, will you be made invisible (see previous paragraph)?

Did you even read the article?

[waauw]

Hmmm, maybe more nations should try and imitate the chinese. They shielded and financed their own domestic software to forge their businesses. I'm not the one for protectionism, but this seems like a pretty decent way of using it.

[Dukasaur]

Hmmm, maybe more nations should try and imitate the chinese. They shielded and financed their own domestic software to forge their businesses. I'm not the one for protectionism, but this seems like a pretty decent way of using it.

Just transfers to potential abuse of power to a different set of hands.

[waauw]

Hmmm, maybe more nations should try and imitate the chinese. They shielded and financed their own domestic software to forge their businesses. I'm not the one for protectionism, but this seems like a pretty decent way of using it.

Just transfers to potential abuse of power to a different set of hands.

Depends how you manage it. One of the problems is that the big 5 hold quasi monopolies/oligopolies. One of the best ways to solve any such problem is to create more competition. If they can't be found anywhere else, then you need to cultivate them yourself.

[mrswdk]

You mean, all data collected by the Big Five is controlled by the Big Five.

Google and Facebook control some data. Government agencies and universities control other data. Most of the Big Five’s data isn’t useful for anything other than marketing. So why is it scary that they have it?

Data collection is just the tip of the iceberg.

The control of data flow is another major component. If Google wants to make your company invisible, it is, and all the "Search Engine Optimization" tricks on the planet won't make it rise to on anyone's search. We trust that Google is a fair and impartial judge of what sites are relevant to your search, but is it?

I don’t know about the US/Canada but in the EU Google is required to abide by competition regulations that prevent it from doing stuff like that. It’s pretty easy for governments to recognize the power of these companies and regulate them accordingly.

Ownership is another problem. Every worthwhile new innovation is bought up by one of the big 5. Does that mean there will be no more players at the big boys' table? If you start a tech company, if it's any good it will be bought out from under you. That might be great for you; not so great for people who believe competition is the key to customer satisfaction.

If there are still tech SMEs successfully starting up and launching new products then the Big Five clearly aren’t crowding other players out of the market.

[mrswdk]

Hmmm, maybe more nations should try and imitate the chinese. They shielded and financed their own domestic software to forge their businesses. I'm not the one for protectionism, but this seems like a pretty decent way of using it.

Korea, Singapore, Taiwan province and Japan all did the same - shielded their own industries to give them time to grow before fully opening up their internal market. The UK and US adopted protectionist measures during their industrialization too, and I assume the same is true for other developed European nations.

Compare that to countries in South America and Africa that let themselves be told they had to open up immediately, and have subsequently gotten no further than middle income status (if they even got that far) and it seems pretty apparent that the best model for a developing country is to be at least a bit protectionist while it’s still developing.

And as you can see in China, shutting out companies such as Google, facebook and Uber has enabled China to develop its own enormous indigenous tech companies such as Baidu, Tencent, Didi Dache etc. rather than being flooded by the American ones.

[Dukasaur]

Hmmm, maybe more nations should try and imitate the cheese.

Yes, you're right!