Why are Big Tech companies a threat to human rights?(www.amnesty.org)
52 pointsby HotGarbage17 hours ago8 comments
  • musicale10 hours ago
    The "why" question isn't answered. The answer is that big tech seeks (and its owners/shareholders demand) unending profit growth, and when human rights (privacy, etc.) or anything else get in the way, profit takes precedence.

    There are some exceptions, but the overall trend is clear.

  • mc3214 hours ago
    I feel as though they kind of ignore "tech companies" in China, Russia, India, Iran, etc., who probably do worse things regarding human rights. If nothing else they should state that at the outset given they speak of "the global majority" where the technology companies they mention have either none or limited penetration.
    • cutemonster4 hours ago
      I find it lacking that the report doesn't mention TikTok or X / Twitter. TikTok has been used for manipulating voters in Europe.
    • surgical_fire6 hours ago
      The title indicates the article is specifically about big tech companies.

      There are none of those from China, Russia, China, Iran.

      I presume technology companies from those countries are used in support to authoritarian governments, but that sounds like a separate issue of how "big tech" as we understand it operate.

      • mc324 hours ago
        There are big technology companies in those countries. They may not have the reach with the exception of TikTok which has reach into the west.

        I take issue because they bring up big tech influence into geographies outside “the western world” but big tech has little penetration there and they should pint that out.

        • surgical_fire33 minutes ago
          When I read "Big Tech" with this casing, I think of companies such as MS, Meta, Google, Amazon, etc. Maybe I do have a faulty understanding of the term?

          Perhaps TikTok is the closest thing to that outside of that group.

  • readams15 hours ago
    Amnesty has long since squandered any credibility they once had
    • sghiassy15 hours ago
      Why?
      • hsuduebc215 hours ago
        I second that. Why?
        • brazukadev7 hours ago
          At least in my country, the amnesty only acts against left wing politicians and governments, you can literally compare similar cases or even worse that they intentionally don't emit no judgment, report or whatsoever
  • like_any_other14 hours ago
    > They also buy up competition and enforce rules on other companies that make it difficult for competitors to thrive.

    The article is quite sparse with sources/specifics, so let me back up this claim :

    While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... (It was surprisingly difficult finding any reporting on what should be a major story.)

  • SilverElfin13 hours ago
    Lobbying, regulatory capture, network effects, bundling, dark patterns - these are the anti competitive pieces that suggest big tech should be both broken up and regulated more heavily
  • DaveZale16 hours ago
    there was a lot more innovation with the local dial-up DSL networks for sure! It was cheap, fast, high quality service, with a human you could contact LOCALLY.
  • fatih-erikli-cg15 hours ago
    [dead]
  • CGamesPlay15 hours ago
    Wow, an article about human rights lost credibility before I could even read the headline. They put up their mandatory (for their marketing) cookie banner, the "settings" page uses a dark pattern where the optional cookies are already off so clicking them would turn them on, and the only buttons are "Accept Recommended Cookies" or "X". Oh look, the article includes a section about our right to privacy, how compelling.
    • cyclotron3k15 hours ago
      Until you click the "accept" button, you haven't agreed to accept any cookies, so if you instead click through to settings, it shows you the current state: cookies off. I think the toggles could be a bit clearer, but I don't really have a problem with it.

      Having worked at AI (a long time ago), I can assure you this isn't some mastermind plot to sneak a couple of cookies onto the computers of the one or two people who click through to settings.

      • Rygian10 hours ago
        A prominent "Deny" button is mandatory by privacy law (at least in Europe). It is missing.
        • 171862744015 minutes ago
          It's not if the state without any button click is "Deny".
    • politelemon11 hours ago
      It's a common juxtaposition on topics like these and happens frequently on larger news sites too. Often the author is not in control of the actual websites.

      That shouldn't be taking away from the messaging and certainly not a reason to lose credibility with something orthogonal.

    • 15 hours ago
      undefined
    • echelon15 hours ago
      You can track readers and the spread of your content AND decry the the unfair market powers and advantages big tech has simultaneously.

      Big tech is shaping public discourse. Big tech is censoring public squares. Big tech is forcing us to continue buying new devices. Big tech is killing open standards and platforms. Big tech is hurting democracy. Big tech is enabling monitoring. Big tech is using societal scale antipatterns to generate more profits than most countries. Big tech is engaging in anti-worker practices ...