xeni — 2014-06-30T17:48:21-04:00 — #1
funruly — 2014-06-30T18:02:51-04:00 — #2
Not sure which news is most worst, this, facebook, or blackwater.
HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO CELEBRATE MY COUNTRY ON FRIDAY WHEN THE WEEK STARTS LIKE THIS?!?!?!?
dioptase1 — 2014-06-30T18:16:23-04:00 — #3
Sigh... I wish people understood what a corporation is a bit better. And what corporate personhood is. It's a convenient fiction. Hyperbole is pointless.
davide405 — 2014-06-30T18:18:25-04:00 — #4
The most worsterest news is that, once again, I have run afoul of the ♥ limit
davide405 — 2014-06-30T18:26:47-04:00 — #5
I'll see your Wikipedia link and raise you the relevant subsection.
I don't see much hyperbole in what Less Lessig is doing.
dioptase1 — 2014-06-30T18:41:13-04:00 — #6
What Lessig is doing is just fine. It's when people use the phrase "corporations are people" without understanding the concept (and its limitations) that I cringe.
Lessig is targeting big money in politics. Corporations are only piece of that, and only because they have the same rights as the individual people that create them. It does no good to target corporations alone. They are a sideshow.
thaumatechnicia — 2014-06-30T19:07:48-04:00 — #7
Do I get to say "You'all must be soo proud right now, eh?" this time?
tachin1 — 2014-06-30T19:10:29-04:00 — #8
When a corporation can hold religious views your argument, while sane, is seriously eroded..
zzzz — 2014-06-30T19:37:01-04:00 — #9
Still got Harper? Let's call it a draw.
walterplinge — 2014-06-30T20:47:29-04:00 — #10
I would start by remembering that the American economic hegemony is responsible for a large number of horrible things happening outside of the US.
chellberty — 2014-06-30T21:08:27-04:00 — #11
davide405 — 2014-06-30T21:32:48-04:00 — #12
What's in the center ring?
crashproof — 2014-06-30T21:38:06-04:00 — #13
From a photograph, you can tell that she's upper middle class and college educated (and therefore, it's okay to deny her some of the rights she'd get if she were male), as opposed to holding down a job at Hobby Lobby to supplement the inadequate pay she gets from her job at McDonalds?
Go you. (Or whoever recaptioned it.)
dioptase1 — 2014-06-30T22:02:11-04:00 — #14
Those that control the corporation.
Corporations are not AI's. They don't act independent of some human's decision. They aren't ambitious except as an extension of the people who own and run them Whatever hopes, fears, objectives, and possessions they have are extensions of the people who own and run them.
When people mock the concept that corporations are people, they are blinding themselves to the most powerful way to control corporations. A corporation is not a person. But corporations are composed of people. They are people. Alter the motivations of those people, and you alter how corporations act. Try to change how corporations act, independent of the people that control them, and very little will change.
dioptase1 — 2014-06-30T22:09:23-04:00 — #15
Look up the term religious corporation. It's a very old concept.
A corporation itself cannot hold a religious view. However, it can act on behalf of those that control it, who may have a common religious view. Thus a corporation can act religious, even perform religious acts. Or violate religious beliefs.
That was the crux of the SC case. Can a corporation, which acting on behalf of its owners, be forced to perform actions which violate the core beliefs (i.e. religion) of the owners. The SC said that under narrow circumstances, no, it cannot.
chellberty — 2014-06-30T22:12:20-04:00 — #16
Go you. (Or whoever re-captioned it.)
do you mean "do you?"
Nope I have boycotted Hobby lobby and advised people I know to do likewise.
Obviously my message about intersectionality did not come across.
davide405 — 2014-06-30T22:25:59-04:00 — #17
How do you propose that we alter the motivations of the 0.1% crowd?
kennykb — 2014-06-30T22:32:00-04:00 — #18
Corporations don't act independent of some human's decision?
I'd assert that often they do. They act for the benefit of their shareholders, who elect a board of directors to protect their interests. But for a great many corporations, the shareholders are other corporations, and the ownership often forms incestuous cycles. In a good many of them, the directors and officers are beholden to institutional shareholders, which are other corporations, whose directors and officers are in turn beholden to institutional shareholders, in a never-ending cycle. And the cycle has broken loose from its moorings and appears not to have any human control at all.
Contributing to this has been several court decisions which offer the guidance that it is the fiduciary duty of a corporation to maximize its profits (while staying within the bounds of the law), even if that requires unethical (but legal) behaviour, Anything less is dereliction of that duty. Gone are the days when corporate officers could decide that it was better for profits in the long run to act ethically, so as not to give customers an incentive to take their custom elsewhere.
The System has awakened. We used to imagine that malicious AI would come from a deranged military system holding the world hostage under the threat of nuclear holocaust, but it has come instead from a deranged, and entirely automated, financial system holding the world hostage under the threat of economic catastrophe.
acerplatanoides — 2014-06-30T22:40:20-04:00 — #19
in addition to the individuals that create them, as corporate speech is additional rights for the owners, a second megaphone. And that is a relevant part of it. Reasonable limits on the speech of companies, towards the ends of removing money from politics... not sure I have a problem with it.
newliminted — 2014-06-30T23:27:30-04:00 — #20
I can tell all that because despite what's depicted in the other two-thirds of the picture she's still smiling.
next page →