Slashdot Mirror


Sergey Brin Says Facebook, Apple and Gov't Biggest Threats To Internet Freedom

An anonymous reader writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin has listed three threats to Internet freedom: Facebook, Apple, and governments that censor their citizens. Brin's comments were made to The Guardian: 'The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.'"

11 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a minute! by readandburn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Those just happen to be his competitors! What a crazy coincidence!

  2. glass houses by noh8rz3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i would add an additional item, and move it to the top of the list - companies that aim to track everything you do and aggregate that in one place. you could also add the gov't agencies that collude with them to track citizens. This would put FB and Goog tied at the top of the list. Not sure who is first, but they're both trying.

    1. Re:glass houses by noh8rz3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Without privacy, there is no freedom" ~Descartes

  3. Governments maybe, but the other two? by multiben · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, how are Facebook and Apple threatening the freedom of the internet? Sure, I'm restricted if I'm using Facebook or Apple technologies, but there are literally thousands of places I can post and do whatever I want. The internet is a very big place.

    Also, the other day I tried to sign up for a second Google+ account but it didn't like the names I was choosing because it didn't consider them "real" names. Seems a bit rich to be accusing others of limiting freedom.

  4. The FBI has guns by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but a coercive monopoly with guns is far worse than a mere merchant with a huge market share.

    1. Re:The FBI has guns by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but a coercive monopoly with guns is far worse than a mere merchant with a huge market share.

      This is a stupid libertarian slogan. Merchants are the ones who gets laws passed to infringe on our rights without any guns. Merchants are the ones who screw up the economy and get away with it. Merchants are the ones with the money and political influence who control the government. If the gun-toting government were gone tomorrow, who do you think would arm themselves first and heaviest?

      You know what? I prefer to be able to have a coercive monopoly that's within my control (which I'll happily pay a small percentage of) so that I don't have to face a coercive monopoly who can kill society without guns.

      Libertarians are idiots.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  5. Re:Why not malware authors then? by wickerprints · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spelling error correction: "...information I have access to," not "too."

    Also, some context: I think it goes without saying that I do not use Facebook. I've gone so far as to block all their domains in my hosts file, not to mention put email filters on anything that even mentions it, so I don't get invites. I absolutely despise it, not to mention Zuckerberg's holier-than-thou attitude (e.g., "don't put it online if you want to keep it private"). I'm also no fan of Apple--while I like some of their products, it's mainly because it's not Microsoft or Google.

    The problem I have is that nobody's hands are clean. I would summarize various companies thusly:

    Microsoft: We became the only game in town because we bought out or threatened everybody else, but we've become bloated and hobbled by our own incompetence.
    Google: We'll talk your ear off about freedom and pledge to "do no evil," but underneath it all we're really just like everyone else, hellbent on world domination--but for your own good, of course!
    Apple: We want to deliver you the best user experience...on the backs of Chinese factory workers. And we know what you want better than you do, because we tell you what you want.
    Facebook: We exploit you and give you a half-hearted apology afterward.
    EA: We keep raping you because for some reason, you keep coming back.
    Yahoo: What just happened?

    When the biggest tech companies all act this way, is it any surprise that there's going to be finger-pointing and mudslinging? Fact is, nobody looks good because each is amorally driven by one goal above all else: profit, rather than ethics. And then they go about rationalizing that the pursuit of such profit and power is so that they can then be ethical, when in all cases, the exact opposite has occurred--companies become LESS ethical the more powerful they get.

  6. Re:No shit sherlock by BZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple pushes for standards? No, not really. For example, they're the only browser maker that does not employ _anyone_ to work on CSS specs. Google, Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla all have employees doing so. Apple? Not so much.

    Also, Apple is explicitly refusing to submit things like -webkit-text-size-adjust for standardization (they claim it's their "proprietary technology"),.

    Oh, and the little bit about waiting until touch events were just about standardized in the W3C (without Apple's involvement, because they chose to not join the working group), then declare they have patents on the standard as written and they refuse to license them. Had they joined the working group, they would have had to disclose this much earlier in the
    process, but it's in Apple's interest to have touch events working better in iOS than in web pages, so people create iOS-specific content and not HTML that works on all devices.

    The result of all of which is that if you browse on a phone or tablet you constantly run into sites that require WebKit, and more often than not require Mobile Safari to render right.

    Apple _does_ however try hard to make it _look_ like it's pushing for standards. I'll grant you that much. And it's not trying to monopolize the internet; just to slow down its development so it won't compete on a level playing field with iOS as an application delivery platform.

  7. Re:Why not malware authors then? by jonnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Sergey Brin is lamenting Apple's restrictive iOS platform as a threat to internet freedom, then why not get to the root cause of that restrictiveness, which is malware?

    Believing that malware is the reason why Apple chose a walled-garden model for its app store requires the same degree of naivete needed to believe that child pornography is the reason why governments want to control your communications.

  8. historically and logically wrong by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the monopoly is accountable to you through your vote. it is an extension of your will, not an imposition of an alien will on you

    in fact, if you were to remove the monopoly, there would be no absence of monopoly, the merchant would merely fill the power vacuum, and he isn't accountable to you. he's accountable to the quest for more profits, at any cost, including the raping of your freedom. then he buys the guns and points them at you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_Government_Services,_Inc.

    Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America, causing the state of Ohio to outlaw the agency due to fears it could be hired as a private army or militia.[citation needed] Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.[2]
    During the labor unrest of the late 19th century and early 20th century, businessmen hired the Pinkerton Agency to provide agents that would infiltrate unions, to supply guards to keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories, and sometimes to recruit goon squads to intimidate workers. The best known such confrontation was the Homestead Strike of 1892, in which Pinkerton agents were called in to enforce the strikebreaking measures of Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie, who was abroad; the ensuing conflicts between Pinkerton agents and striking workers led to several deaths on both sides. The Pinkertons were also used as guards in coal, iron, and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, as well as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877.

    for the modern parable, see blackwater. what would blackwater become with no government already in place? the police, accountable to the corporation, not to you, which your real police department is

    so your opinions and your views are illogical and historically wrong. they speak of a propagandized individual (corporate funded propaganda like fox news, the real threat to your freedom, not your government, which you VOTE for)

    of course, where your government doesn't represent your will, it is because it is bought out by... corporate financial interests

    heal YOUR government by removing the corporate infection, and understand the real threat to your freedom: the merchant you allude to

    but make YOUR government your enemy, and see the corporate financial interests as harmless, and you are basically giving away your own hard won freedoms won by your forefathers (see pinkerton's above) to forces which have no interest in your freedoms at all, especially when your freedoms represent a threat to bottom line. then hiring goon sqwuads, with no government around to stop them, makes perfect capitalistic sense

    there is your daily dose of anti-propaganda, i hope you aren't kneejerking too much right now

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  9. Re:Ah yes, a half assed Occupy Wall Streeter by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Libertarians are not the enemy of anyone except Big Brother. Their whole mantra is to leave people to their own devices.

    You seem to think Big Business and Big Government are enemies of each other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are the same, differing only in tiny squabbles which distract voters. The last thing either wants is for people to actually run their own lives and take the corporations to task.

    I never said Big Business and Big Government are enemies of each other.

    If you actually think the coercive monopoly is going to use their guns to help people battle merchants, you are living in some weird alternate dream world.

    And if you think that won't happen if the government disappears tomorrow, you're an idiot.

    That's the weirdest thing about Occupy Wall Street. They identify half the problem, corporations out of control, but then they refuse to see the other half, which is Big Brother actively assisting them. They are one and the same, and the government will never do anything to the 1% just because a few 99% rabble camp out in parks and shout for the government to come rescue them. Only individuals taking charge and upsetting BOTH Big Government and Big Business will solve anything.

    Note that none of what you said here actually opposes what I ACTUALLY said. What I was responding to was the stupid idea that a person could prefer Big Business rather than Big Government, when they are basically the same. That was my point, but you completely missed it so you can rant about Occupy Wall Street.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.