[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.