Ad-tech is fascist tech(pluralistic.net) |
Ad-tech is fascist tech(pluralistic.net) |
Nailed it.
But note that the quote does call it out as a myth.
But when stock valuations are completely disconnected from fundamentals like earnings, then regardless of the legality we're kind of circling back to the market pushing that dynamic, aren't we? It's like the market is no longer even optimizing for short term gains per se (eg quarterly earnings), but rather for whatever memes might boost their meme stock. Sometimes this is [still] quarterly earnings, and sometimes it's about the perceived size of the market or how they're cozying up to the fascists in power. So for public companies, it's not like major shareholders, the board, or management really have the ability to work towards longer term plans that go against this dynamic.
It became clear to me quickly that the data these people wanted to collect on anyone and everyone could be used against me should they want to - not that I was doing anything questionable, but it was just creepy as F**.
The final straw for me was when they got some kind of contract with a major hotel chain and were all-too-giddy to listen in on the smart TVs in every room. I did not want to help them further any of their agendas, so I bailed on that place. Fortunately this was many years ago when dev jobs were easy to come by, I had 3 offers in a week.
Yes, Thiel openly says surveillance tech is the anti-Christ. Then, he goes on to build the tech.
The frustrating thing is seeing it happen in real-time and knowing you can't inform or educate enough people.
> Oh, nothing, just individually locating and downloading 9.5gb worth of (200+) high-rez (3600px wide) scans out of a 16th C book of extremely satisfying machine from the Library of Congress, one at a time, labeling them, and putting them in a folder for future collage work.
[1] https://pluralistic.net/2026/02/19/now-we-are-six/
[2] https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/03/cannier-valley/
[3] https://pluralistic.net/2026/02/04/slice-bees/
[4] https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/02/constant-reader/
[5] https://bsky.app/profile/doctorow.pluralistic.net/post/3mgpz...
I don't think I've ever been harmed by this stuff. Google no doubt knows a lot about me as I use their stuff and I imagine they'd show me a targeted ad if I didn't have an ad blocker but not much harm there really?
Has any Google user been actually harmed like that?
Well, actually it does harm individuals by forcing them to buy something they didn't want to buy through targeted ads. Examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45565346
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...
[1]: https://lobste.rs/
Job postings, Show HN, and other ads on HN are contextually relevant to a majority of the users and require no tracking to present.
This post appears to be about the former, not the later.
It gained popularity in corporate governance since then but it’s not a legal requirement it’s a shareholder preference. But that preference is violated all the time.
People often cite a 1919 era case from Henry ford because it has a pithy statement but the court in that case explicitly upheld many of the decisions Ford made that violated the principle.
That is, there is no law or precedent that requires corporate officers to only consider shareholders.
Considering the vast majority of US corporations are incorporated in Delaware, I think it's accurate to say most US companies only aim to maximize shareholder value.
Legal defense instead of offense. IANAL, correct me please.
But to the point of this thread, there is no legal requirement that makes it so a boards fiduciary duty is in conflict with broader moral decisions, nor one that requires them to forget about their humanity when applying their duties as corporate officers.
If they are assholes, its because they are assholes, not because they are required to do so by their obligations to the corporation.
"Fiduciary duty" is a duty to operate in good faith, without self-dealing, in whatever (1) you believe to be (2) the best interests of the company. Both (1) and (2) are totally subjective. You can believe the best interests of your company reside with employee welfare, or with customer satisfaction. You will not find a Delaware case that says otherwise.
So far as I know, the only time the actual value of a company's equity comes into the picture is if there are multiple competing offers to acquire the company.
In eBay vs Newmark: >Having chosen a for-profit corporate form, the craigslist directors are bound by the fiduciary duties and standards that accompany that form. Those standards include acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders. The “Inc.” after the company name has to mean at least that. Thus, I cannot accept as valid for the purposes of implementing the Rights Plan a corporate policy that specifically, clearly, and admittedly seeks not to maximize the economic value of a for-profit Delaware corporation for the benefit of its stockholders—no matter whether those stockholders are individuals of modest means or a corporate titan of online commerce.
https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=143440
In the Trados case: >It is, of course, accepted that a corporation may take steps, such as giving charitable contributions or paying higher wages, that do not maximize profits currently. They may do so, however, because such activities are rationalized as producing greater profits over the long-term. Decisions of this nature benefit the corporation as a whole, and by increasing the value of the corporation, the directors increase the share of value available for the residual claimants. Judicial opinions therefore often refer to directors owing fiduciary duties ―to the corporation and its shareholders. This formulation captures the foundational relationship in which directors owe duties to the corporation for the ultimate benefit of the entity‘s residual claimants. Nevertheless, ―stockholders‘ best interest must always, within legal limits, be the end. Other constituencies may be considered only instrumentally to advance that end.
https://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=193520
Generally I’m not aware of any civil claim that would let shareholders sue over bad morals.
The claim in the suit is notably that the company failed to disclose the behavior, not that they did the behavior (Target notwithstanding), which mostly agrees with your line of questioning.