[pembrook]

I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowing on a particular day. And they are legally entitled to hold a gun to your head or kill you if you don't comply.

These are not the same level of risk. Yet more hysterical attention is paid to the former instead of the latter. This is dumb.

Be more worried about governments. Read more history.

[jolmg]

> I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

A reminder that governments can buy from private companies. A company like Palantir can buy data from private companies then incorporate it into the software it sells to governments.

[kvgr]

Yes and government should not be able to do this.

[wredcoll]

Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions.

Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power.

In general I would agree that say, walmart, is mostly interested in encouraging you to shop at their stores more frequently with the information they gather, it's also true that other corporations are currently selling the information they gather to the government.

And, of course, if I dislike what e.g. the department of labour is doing with information it's collecting, I can vote for various representatives up and down the hierarchy of power, in the USA this would include things like state governors / attorneys, federal legislators, presidents, etc, all of whom have some level of influence over my information being collected and used.

If I dislike what walmart is doing, my options are considerably more limited. I can lobby for a law to be passed against it or I can essentially wish for it to go out of business.

[wartywhoa23]

> Governments can do a lot of things that hurt you, this is a consequence of having power. Giant Corporations can also hurt you because they also have power.

False dichotomy, they are the same Lernaean Hydra.

[neonstatic]

> if I dislike what e.g. the department of labour is doing with information it's collecting, I can vote for various representatives up and down the hierarchy of power

How has that been going? Did you manage to elect someone, who made a positive change? Let's be charitable - you can pick an example from your life that goes back up to 50 years.

[wredcoll]

Sure, Obama (and friends) got the ACA passed which, among other things, forbade health insurance companies from refusing service to people with "pre-existing conditions" as well as also forbidding lifetime caps on services needed for treatment.

Is it the best most perfect law ever passed in the history of humanity? Obviously not. Is it substantially better than what came before? YES. It's hard to explain just how screwed you were if you started getting hit by the "pre-existing conditions" disqualifier or your health insurance decided that they only needed to spend a million treating your cancer and after that you're on your own.

[pembrook]

> Your comment seems to frame this as a "two sides issue" as if it was a see-saw and you can only move back and forth between one side and the other with no room for nuance or alternate directions.

No. My point is you should fear centralized power in general, and in exact proportion to the scope of the power being centralized. All power gets abused.

Governments are centralized power on a scale that makes the most powerful corporation on earth look like an ant. Historically AND currently, the worst atrocities come from governments, not companies.

Yet, internet discourse (and new legislation) over the past 10 years has pretended like the biggest threat to us re: data collection is private companies. They are indeed a threat. But they are NOWHERE near the scale of the threat that data collection by governments represents.

This blind spot is part of the reason mass surveillance legislation is being rolled out (largely successfully) everywhere right now.

For example, we've created such a boogieman out of facebook/social media (which, ironically, doesn't even exist anymore as people remember it) that it has manufactured consent among the public for governments building the infrastructure for 1984. A far greater threat to us than micro-targeted face cream ads ever were.

[sensanaty]

Yeah 'cause we've never had private corporations like Coca Cola or Chiquita Bananas hire paramilitary forces in South America before.

Both large gov't and large corpo are horrible and both should be equally avoided.

[pembrook]

So your position is that, because Coca Cola once funded paramilitary action in South America...companies are a worse threat to us than governments?

You don't seem able to hold two ideas in your head.

Yes, companies can abuse their power. Yes, governments can abuse their power.

However, the power wielded by governments is on a whole different scale, so the capacity for abuse and atrocity is exponentially larger (governments have killed millions and can literally destroy the entire world with firepower 100X over).

[wredcoll]

I agree with you on the general principle that we should demand better privacy protection from the government, its agents, and the corporations that claim its citizenship.

Arguing about who has killed more seems mildly pointless since it relies on a clear cut distinction between "business" and "government" which would be hard to find in a lot of real world situations. Even aside from stuff like the east indies company, Hearst's newspapers helped create a situation where a war was declared, what share of the resulting death toll do they get?

Beyond that, something I've noticed over my years on this planet is that, generally speaking, power cannot be destroyed, only transferred.

What I mean by that is someone is going to have power over all sorts of aspects of your life, in ways that range from what color you can paint your house, where you can buy a house, how much you get paid, whether or not you get paid a salary, how much taxes you pay, etc etc.

I would, in general, prefer that the entity with that power be some kind of democratically elected institution, hopefully with lots of various internal and external safeguards.

As you say, we should be worried about the government collecting and storing our private information. But if we stopped them from doing that, then some other entity would just take over spying on people.

[pembrook]

> power cannot be destroyed, only transferred...someone is going to have power over all sorts of aspects of your life

I fully agree with this, but that someone doesn't need to be a 3rd party centralized entity (like a government or company), the power can be decentralized onto you.

That's the story of basically all progress in the modern world.

The evolution from Monarchy/Dictatorship -> Representative Democracy was a step down this path (albeit a mild one).

The evolution of knowledge from Church -> Printing Press -> Internet did this, hence why I have to the power to publicly broadcast these words to you.

The evolution of media from Broadcast TV -> Cable -> Youtube -> Tiktok did this.

The evolution of commerce from Department Stores -> Malls -> Shopify/Etsy/etc did this.

And AI is currently enabling the next step of this in many new areas.

> a clear cut distinction between "business" and "government" which would be hard to find in a lot of real world situations

I think you're intentionally muddying the waters here.

In fact it's extremely easy to make the distinction between "business" and "government," given the monopoly on violence granted to government. Proctor & Gamble has never held a gun to my head and imprisoned me for not buying their products.

[u8080]

Wtf are you talking about if NSA PRISM was discovered 10+ years ago which proved all private companies cooperated with govt to spy on you?

You say that govt is holding a gun to citizen's head, but govt also holding a gun at private company's head.

[protocolture]

>I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

I keep trying to explain to people that any data companies harvest, for whatever purpose, can then be accessed by the government, and that trying to draw distinctions in what is a big massive ouroboros is irrelevant.

Even if you trust the company AND trust the government, the data exists forever, and no one can trust all future governments and all future corporations.

[pembrook]

The root issue is still government having absurdly asymmetric power over you.

If the government weren't legally able to use the toilet bowl cleaner companies data against you, it wouldn't matter.

The problem is us giving governments the right to use this data against us (passports to access the internet, messages being under constant surveillance, etc.)

In Europe we're happily handing over our rights every day so that governments have more power over us (supposedly to "protect" us from the big bad evil American tech companies).

Except, Google just wants to make $100/yr off me instead of $50/yr by me voluntarily choosing to use them.

Meanwhile, EU governments want to literally control what I think and feel and do, and take out $100,000 in debt on the backs of each of my children (we're at 115% debt-to-GDP in France) to fund this nightmare surveillance state.

[protocolture]

>The Root Issue

Look trying to separate them is foolhardy. Corporations exist due the limitation of corporate liability provided by government. There's no scenario where you have a corporation without government. A corporation will sell you out wholesale to continue having the right to make 100 bucks a year off of people.

[ribosometronome]

The law can change. Which is why it's better if that data was not collected in the first place.

Plenty of companies collecting data are operated by people who want to control what you think, feel, and do both for profit and based on their owners personal beliefs.

[dinkleberg]

Exactly. And it is also incredibly short-sided and naive to push for more power for the government when you think it is just going to be used by "your side" for the issues you care about. When you want to wield those powers to promote your own ends against those you oppose, don't be surprised when those you oppose come into power and use those same powers back against you.

[like_any_other]

> is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

And to steal tips [1], lower your salary [2,3], charge you more [3,4], and limit how you may use "your" property [5]. I'm sure there are many I've missed.

Oh and how could I forget - to smear you if you stand in their way [6].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoorDash#Withholding_of_tips_a... (try doing that when tips are in cash)

[2] https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260401139/emp...

[3] https://towardsjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Real-S...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/27/nvidia-limits-data-center-us...

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fu...

[pembrook]

Oh the horror, they might try to lower your salary forcing you to find another competing employer!

Meanwhile governments wield enough power to destroy the entire world 100X over, and are currently shoveling young boys into the meat grinder of war to be slaughtered by the thousands every day.

As a left-leaning forum, HN has a giant blind spot re: government power vs. corporate power. I'm trying to point this out.

Yes, companies can abuse their power. But their power pales in comparison to government power.

[pqtyw]

> As a left-leaning forum

Even if true it's almost entirely orthogonal.

The "right" is usually only against government control, intervention and surveillance until they get into power. Then they double down on them. Also right wing parties/groups are generally better at controlling and silencing internal opposition (since they are lot better shutting up and falling in line when push comes to shove regardless of their personal beliefs). So they are usually a lot more effective at imposing these things.

[berkes]

Companies fall under the government. So what a company harvests (to sell more toilet bowl cleaner), is accessible to the government it falls under.

By that logic, you should fear companies at least as much as their governments when handing them your data.

But companies have additional goals: to increase profit. Which can be achieved by selling more toilet bowl cleaner. But also by externalising harm/pollution/costs, monopolising, reducing taxes, etc. All of which harm you, personally.

So, sure, worry about governments. But worry more about (big) companies. Read more history.

[pembrook]

This is actually a fantastic example of the blindspot I'm talking about.

You fundamentally are unable to judge risk correctly due to your political bias.

You're even admitting the risk of companies harvesting data is that it may fall in the hands of governments.

Yet you still think a private company lobbying to reduce taxes is a greater threat than your government wielding enough firepower to kill millions of people and destroy the entire world.

[berkes]

> due to your political bias.

That's a wild accusation. Unless you happen to know me, but I don't think you do.

"Lobbying to reduce taxes" was a part of an example. The big problem is their "lobbying for greater freedom".

Yes, governments should be held in check. Systems strengthened to keep governments afraid of the people (not companies) they govern. So that they can keep those that are stronger than me and use that strength to harm me, amongst wich are companies, in check. We have most of this in place. It can (and should be) improved. But we have very little in place to keep companies in check. Antitrust cannot (or is not) used against monopolies, (so the common free-market mechanisms of peoples free movement between suppliers aren't working anymore). Laws that protect humans against companies abolished or not modernized. Information (on which agents in the free-market must operate) is less and less trustworthy, mostly a result of companies spreading that (mis)information.

And TBC, companies have harmed people, are doing so as we speak, whole cities, whole countries. They have actively destabilized governments. Not just "somewhere in Africa", but in the US, in Europe. That's an undeniable fact. Many companies will then spend a lot of effort (and money and influence) to be not held accountable (that is harder to prove, obviously). Many companies will wield influence to be allowed to wield firepower, in all it's forms and shapes.

I am from a country with one of the worst examples of such a company in human history, the V.O.C. Who had such power that it had private armies, was accountable to no-one, grew so large that no "official government" could force it to do anything, for over a century. It literally enslaved people, killed inefficient workers, over-exploit and deplete entire ecosystems, etc etc. We should actively and strongly work against such companies from ever coming back (if they ever really left)

Read more history.

[joenot443]

Governments have a monopoly on violence, companies generally do not.

This fact alone makes the comparison you’re trying to make pretty silly. You have far, far more to fear from the country from which you’re a citizen than the company for which you’re a customer.

Read more history.

[berkes]

That government has the monopoly of violence against the company too. They can easily strongarm the company into harming me.

With private security companies, private jails, private utilities, the harm both can and will do, is practically the same. And with the boundaries of "private" and "government" becoming more opaque (like private tech companies deciding who is to be detained and who not; who is allowed to access their money; or do their jobs, etc) the difference is even more theoretic.

A government that has absolute power over a company/sector, can (and will, in my belief) use that power to make the company/sector do it's work. Making this company/sector just as dangerous as the company.

If I get mistreated at an airport (of a democratic country), and the agents doing the mistreating are civil-servants, they (or their chain of command) are democratically held accountable. But if they are employees of Acme-Security Inc, granted the right of violence by the democratic government, there's nothing I can do, no-one to appeal to. Both cases are something I, an individual, cannot do anything against. I am mistreated anyway.

[mikk14]

Companies can buy the monopoly of violence from governments and kill you if you're inconvenient to them.

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

Read more history.

[asdewqqwer]

Read Second Amendment.

Also, governments consists of a large amount of human each acting for their own benefit. Assuming they can easily collectively united as a single force to use violence to harm all citizen (on the topic of privacy, it really is the case) suddenly is wild.

On the contrary, for a limited government, it very likely will result in using the monopoly of violence to provide extreme capitalism style IP and private property protection which results in dominating power of large companies. On the other hand, every bit of history demonstrated you can never maintain monopoly of violence if you are really against people.

Monopoly on economic is strong because it can be guarded by violence, while violence cannot be easily guarded by itself within a country (unless AI overlord really comes).

Read more history.

[belorn]

The distinction is very much blurred, and there is much more profitable way to use data than getting people to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner.

Companies can use it to determine voting patters and sell that to interested political parties. Government are made from political parties and can steer money to those parties, thus the data can now be sold indirectly to the government.

Companies can use it to indirectly target competitors through their customers. Creating a monopoly is much more profitable than just selling more products. Gaining favors with political parties in the above strategy can also help here.

Companies can sell data to governments of other countries. Just because your own government has laws that forbids it, it doesn't mean other countries has the same laws or will treat the citizens of your country as their own. Trade like this can also occur in multiple steps. Company sell data to country A, and country A shares/sells it to your own government. Your own government might finds this preferable to buy it directly as laws may not apply to data shared/bought, even if that data is about their own citizens.

Selling personal data to the government is profitable, but there are also other interested parties. People in legal disputes may want information about the other side, or the juries, or even the judge. Companies that want to do industry espionage would want to buy information about other companies employees. Criminal organizations very much like to buy information about vulnerable people like the elderly. Again, the data doesn't need to be sold directly but can go through many hands until it finally reach the most scummy buyers, and the money will slowly trickle upwards to the seller.

As long as someone collects the data and is willing to sell it to someone, sooner or later it will be sold/leaked to someone who shouldn't have it. That is the fundamental issue with companies collecting personal information.