[dr_dshiv]

I really wish this was better understood about consumer brand capitalism. These companies would have massive loss in value if they did not preserve privacy.

I am reminded of when an airline roughly pulled a doctor off a plane -- the company lost billions in market value. They won't make that mistake again. That's moral capitalism at it's best. If it had been a government owned service, I don't think there would be such a powerful feedback cycle.

Similarly, because Google would lose billions if they didn't care for my data, I trust them more than gov't.

Note that this only works for consumer brand capitalism -- it didn't work with Equifax.

[megous]

All they need to maintain are appearances. Think somehting like their customer support for their free services. You get some help when you manage to pull a social media attention, otherwise good luck. And killing someone's gmail or developer account, or adsense account is much more directly damaging, than privacy violations.

Appearances and all.

[CaptArmchair]

> These companies would have massive loss in value

s/value/trust/g

Companies might see a decrease in revenue because potential customers lose trust. Or more specifically, they lose trust because they stop believing that the outcome of striking a deal - purchasing a ticket for a flight - won't be as positive: either the direct outcome to themselves, or an indirect outcome towards all customers.

This is exactly the same dynamic as the public views a government. Trust matters. There's absolutely zero difference.

Members of the public trust that mandated politicians will act in their best interests. That, when given power, politicians can and will be held accountable to their personal responsibility. An election is a renewal of an exchange of value: I, as a member of a the public, will cede a part of my freedom to do whatever and submit myself to a vested authority in return for protection of rights.

However, a loss or a gain of trust doesn't necessarily translate into dire consequences for a company nor an incumbent government.

Facebook and Google keep churning happily along despite many scandals. And it remains to be seen if the current inhabitant of the White House will have to vacate in January 2021.

> If it had been a government owned service, I don't think there would be such a powerful feedback cycle.

There's a difference between public administration and party politics. The former is infrastructure, the latter are the people who manage that infrastructure and, theoretically, can be held accountable for their performance.

The primary goal of any government service isn't perpetuating it's own existence or turning a profit. It's serving the interests of the collective first and foremost. Which is vastly different from serving the interests of individual customers.

Succinctly phrased, this is how freedom, capitalism and government work: "Your right to swing your arm stops where my face starts."

Basically, a government service represents the common interests of a community. That common interest could be preventing people from getting hit in the face. So, government services reside in the space between the end of your fist and the start of my face.

Economic capitalism, however, is nothing more then just you - or anyone including Zuckerberg - wielding arms. Because that's what you want to do for whatever reason. Including a profit motive.

If your arm doesn't hit too many faces, and not too many people speak up about it, then you could happily keep swinging about, without caring what people might think.

Whereas if politicians try to curb your freedom to swing about just one bit, a vocal group will be all up in arms about it (pun intended) in no time.

Finally, let's not forget that trust doesn't follow any logic rules, and the memory of a collective is short at best:

The stock price of your airline bounced back, trading above the original price just 5 days after the incident. Which isn't surprising since analysts have stated consumers don't have a choice due to consolidation anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...

Meanwhile, Equifax has been trading higher then before the 2017 data scandal.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/EFX/