It intrigues me how many people seem to "like" the mega-multinationals (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft). Yes, there're lots of "nice" people working for these ~$tillion corporations... but for every "friend", there're 10-100 people who're quietly working on stuff that's going to impersonally exploit you, if you use their products or services. Those good people are contributing to institutions that are bad for humanity & the world. They're being used & "earning" dirty money.

I suspect what most people would call "like" with regard to tech megacorps is more like acquiescence... more like Stockholm Syndrome - they don't really perceive having a choice to use someone else, or none of them, so they just pretend that they're happy with it... And eventually, they sincerely believe it.

Show thread

The change I'd like to see is us all acknowledging that these corporations don't really qualify as "likeable". Despite their legal standing as individual persons, they're not people, and they're definitely not "nice".

Show thread

@lightweight Yeahh, seems more like 'familiarity'. People seem to flock to mutual points of reference, and brands do that, but web/tech brands are interactive: Alexa much more like a person than a pair of trainers.

I think these are the same people that ignore the implications of their consumption in other areas (e.g. 'where do these sausages come from?')

@douginamug I agree. I think most people's relationship with the "Frightful Five" is more Stockholm Syndrome than anything like a genuine affinity.

@douginamug @lightweight I see it more as a cultural admiration of big business. In New Zealand, I see an increase in this as a negative side effect of tall poppy syndrome dwindling. Sometimes it seems the world has to operate at one extreme or another and can't find a healthy in-between.

@aidalgol @douginamug Yeah, I think we just need to realise that we're anthropromophising corporations to an unhealthy extent. We should treat them like the enemies of the planet that they have proven themselves to be.

@lightweight If we set the question of personhood aside, we still have to realize that they're _immortals_. Interestingly, when I do thought experiments on how immortals should be restricted--especially WRT their treatment of mortals--I find that a _human_ mortal (when medicine gets there) would probably need the same sort of restrictions.

It's a huge asymmetry of power. The law already handles these--think sexual harassment, or employment law.

@vandys @lightweight Beyond immortality, they can die and be reborn to escape responsibilities. Particularly notable with short-lived building companies...


Whoa! You're getting deep into behavioural science and (the pseudoscience of) sociology!

It is an interesting question and observation, but it would take a thesis to properly answer that.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!