Maybe Google's failure to not make the world worse is being spun into an argument on how all technology has its benefits and evils, but the social benefits from Google's tech appear to be outweighed by its social malefices.
You don't have to commit a crime to be targeted, spied on, harassed and have your life destroyed by the government.
When the government spies on innocent people en masse -- because they say they should have nothing to hide --, the government is the one doing harm to an innocent person, and it's the government who has something to hide.
Without accountability, and given the secret and anonymous nature of their interference, we can't trust that the government only spies on guilty people, because they will circularly claim that they are guilty because they are spied on.
And you shouldn't take solace that comparatively only a few innocent people get their lives destroyed, not just because it can happen to you, or because it shouldn't happen in the first place, but because not being accountable for their crimes gradually emboldens the government, and given advances in automation, to scale it up and encompass more of society until one day they come for you or your children.
Methinks it's time for an anti-trust investigation on Google like the one on Microsoft during the Internet Explorer heyday.
At the same time, I don't trust the US has institutions that haven't been sabotaged by successive US administrations (from both sides) in their capacities to pursue anti-trust investigations of this sort.
Every time I see one of those forms I feel like the hungry, desperate sex workers who "consent" to being degraded and humiliated so that they can feed their families for another day...
What's persistently disturbing is that in a free (black) market the price for that commodity has sunk so low. It means that there's a lot of offer available...
>That's precisely what I expect any functioning and remotely competent secret service to do. Secret services are bound to look into anyone that is involved in anything that might represent a liability and a security threat.
I can see how Jacque's and Pierre's prolific fucking is a threat to their sense of security...
Better document it... It might come in handy...
We can't have the enemy using people's sex lives against them... That's our job...
Otherwise the terrorists will strike again... We repeatedly failed in our capacity to protect the nation, but please trust us... We just need more money and power... National security...
I am an artist myself. I don't see Banksy as being an anti-capitalist or anti-consumer culture artist. I see that aspect of his performance as a persona, exactly like Mr. Brainwash is, and that he uses that persona as background for his real art, which are the stunts he pulls off to delight wealthy patrons.
I also don't believe he is trying (ineffectively) to rebel against the commodification of art; he's knowledgeable and complicit in it, much like Damien Hirst.
A case for my argument is that he (deliberately) delighted the art auction audience with his stunt (as opposed to insulted); the art work was only half-shredded, allowing it to still be hung; knowing action houses, they had thoroughly inspected the art work before putting it up for auctioning, and were complicit with Banksy's stunt, and this much is evident in their good-natured choice of words for the press; the art work's value has only increased, as has his reputation as a (complicit and well-wishing) prankster.
In short, Banksy has taken the post-modernist concept of an artist with a persona that superficially and ineffectively rebels against capitalism while the real artist is actively, knowingly and profitably complicit with capitalism... Banksy has taken it to a sublime level, and that's why we in the art world who are in on the joke (and know who is really being laughed at: the public who believe in his flimsy anti-capitalist persona) love him as one of us.
Art has meaning, and some intended meanings expressed through art are nullified when the art piece is turned into a commodity.
Artists rebelling against commodification of their art pieces in the past saw their own anti-commodification art works turned into commodities, thus nullifying their message.
The message that comes through becomes the ideas that you have expressed.
Modern artists like Banksy or Damien Hirst, or anyone who has read Naomi Klein's "No Logo", are knowledgeable of this.
People are free to do how they like with their money, but outrageously some spend it frivolously in cheaply-made art for status or tax evasion purposes.
Bill Gates late-life philanthropy raises a counterpoint to this, in my view. The wealthy don't owe anything to anyone, but that's how a person starves to death waiting for a little mercy. Mr. Gates now invests in saving people, not in art, and that's a worthier status giver.
From a moral point of view, they should be charitable since they have so much that giving away a little bit of their fortune would have a tremendous impact on a significant amount of people while themselves being none the worse for it.
What good was that film if it made us "think", but not act?
I believe OP is putting the lessons in that film into action in his life, and those actions are present in the thoughts expressed in his words, and happily not the other way around like the people in and outside the art world giving lip service to Banksy.
When you ask "why would they?" you can intuit a seemingly good case either way that they would or wouldn't (maybe they would because they're incompetent.)
Instead of relying on intuition, a more to-the-point question is "did they do it?" We have to wait for a definitive answer to this from the authorities.