January 25, 2012
"In Europe, in the United States, throughout the world, we need to make sure we are investing — we are investing in technology, we are investing in basic education so that people can take advantage of these tools. We want to make sure we have the right regulatory environment — a regulatory environment that promotes innovation and economic growth."

—

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s COO at the Digital Life Design conference in Munich, seems to be saying that privacy and economic growth are incompatible.

This is, of course, the exact response you’d expect from someone who’s personally made millions (billions?) of dollars exploiting people’s privacy. Facebook is sure to be wary of some strict new privacy regulations that the EU is recommending.

I loathe Sandberg’s line of reasoning here, that somehow protecting consumer rights is an anathema to making money. Protecting consumers, to my mind, is one of the purposes of government, particularly in a world where corporations have increasing power over our everyday lives, are ever more resistant to self-policing and are bigger, richer and more global than has ever been known in history.

It strikes me that this may be one of the greatest differences between the theories of government in Europe and the United States. I’m becoming more and more wary of a government that insists on protecting the powerful on the backs of the powerless.

(via jimray)

Agreed, most enthusiastically. Reading this, I am torn between shock and amusement. I can’t fathom how the bright, talented Ms Sandberg can keep a straight face whilst equating privacy protection to anti-capitalism before a European audience. I can only conclude that this doesn’t stem from a strong belief in market freedom, but either profound cynicism or a complete misunderstanding of how Europe works. Or both.

Luckily, and unlike here, lobbying only goes so far in the EU. Fingers crossed it’ll stay that way.

— From SF.

(via jimray)

7:30pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z9DOYyFL-Dzy
(View comments) 
(Notes: 17)
  
  1. essdogg said: I agree almost 100 percent. The exception is asserting that government should protect “consumers.” Government protects citizens. Protecting consumers, in my opinion, is a corporate bastardization of the social contract, even if just a semantic one.
  2. whileyouweresleeping reblogged this from jimray and added:
    Agreed, most enthusiastically. Reading this, I am torn between shock...can’t fathom...
  3. penllawen said: Commie. Seriously, though, I totally agree (and am far happier with how EU governments approach this than American).
  4. jimray posted this
Blog comments powered by Disqus