[dragontamer]

https://youtu.be/jh8supIUj6c?t=16m13s

No one but the White man can bring the Internet to you.

Dude, I'm not even white and I find it disparaging. The talk is terrible. It is politically charged when it really shouldn't be. The issue is simple: Privacy concerns are not being respected by Facebook or Google.

I don't know why he keeps bringing up "White People" conquering nations, or "The White Dude who lives in a Cloud and watches over Us" , or any of the other disparaging remarks. What the hell? How many times does he call Mark Zuckerberg white? Why have any emphasis there at all?

If it were a black man in charge of Facebook violating our privacy, it'd be just as bad. Why did he have to bring Mark Zuckerberg's race into this?

Its one thing to be against the system, or to expose the system's flaws to the world. But disparaging the audience is not the answer. His harmful speech is going to hurt the cause in the long term.

[jchrome]

"I don't know why he keeps bringing up "White People" conquering nations, or "The White Dude who lives in a Cloud and watches over Us" , or any of the other disparaging remarks. What the hell? How many times does he call Mark Zuckerberg white? Why have any emphasis there at all?"

You obviously don't understand the main point he is driving at. It's about colonialism. And throughout history, the White Man is typically the colonizer. He's just furthering his point.

I am* white and I don't find it disparaging.

[dragontamer]

> You obviously don't understand the main point he is driving at. It's about colonialism. And throughout history, the White Man is typically the colonizer. He's just furthering his point.

When Google starts to suck the blood out of southeast Asian coolies (to make it harder for them to run away) and furthers the Opium trade to establish economic dominance over China, then he can start comparing modern companies to 1800s-style century colonialism.

Mind you, the East India Company was a privately owned enterprise. And as far as I can tell, that's what he's implicitly comparing Google to.

And as he compares Google to 1800s colonialism, he is making a _complete_ mockery of history. Are you freaking serious? Free Internet offered on balloons is equivalent to EIC-style Imperialism / Colonialism ?

It's equivalent to murdering hundreds-of-thousands of Zulu spearmen with Gatling Guns to establish South Africa Diamond Trade?

His arguments are a mockery of history, and anyone who knows the brutal history of colonialism can only shake their head at the comparison. You are a FOOL to even attempt to draw an equivalency here.

Again, I agree with the point he is _trying_ to make. The problem is that he's an absolutely horrible speaker and horrible arguer. I told you, I refuse to use Facebook or Twitter on privacy grounds. And I've switched my search engine to DDG.gg. I'm living the practice dude, I take online privacy very seriously.

But the hyperbolic elitist aura eminated from Aral Balkan is going to harm the privacy cause in the long run. I prefer to see people on my side of the argument making solid points. Again: Search Bubble. Search privacy. Metadata collection. It is pretty easy to point out the issues of the modern internet: you don't need to make a mockery of history to make good points here.

[jchrome]

> "And as he compares Google to 1800s colonialism, he is making a _complete_ mockery of history. Are you freaking serious? Free Internet offered on balloons is equivalent to EIC-style Imperialism / Colonialism ?"

Colonialism comes in many forms. Sure, there are obvious forms such as enslaving a population and making them mine ore from a mountain so that the colonist can get physical goods. Then there are less obvious forms, cultural imperialism as an example (or as Aral calls it, Digital Imperialism).

Open your mind a bit and criticize him for what he's really saying. You're fighting a straw-man here.