3 ms·

>2. Most other instances of this problem do not generate unequivocally good publicity. `stopthelies comments brings the "unequivocally good" into question (may

>2. Most other instances of this problem do not generate unequivocally good publicity. `stopthelies comments brings the "unequivocally good" into question (maybe not to the general public, but certainly here in this thread), which makes this bit seem a bit handwavy if I state the circumstance like this: Even though we help enable organizations, whose methods are based on questionable ways of classifying what is going on to continue in order to attract funds/status/etc which can skew how resources are allocated and how certain populations would be negatively affected, this is still unquestionably a good thing to do. I wonder how many times "victims" are "helped" when "every country offers counselor services where they'll print them a new temporary visa and even a ticket back home"[0] and makes sure they're on the flight? We'll probably never know until everything isn't jumbled into "human trafficking" tag. >Palantir works with Polaris and NCMEC because they actually care (IMO), Polaris/NCMEC needs align precisely with Palantir capabilities, and they're a rare opportunity to be somewhat public about the company, if not the software. If I pass this through an altruism filter, the 2nd and 3rd remain. I can say sure to 2 because anyone with ability to generate such plots and access to the data could do that, but I think 3 is the most interesting. Can you elaborate on the benefits of this? The last bit makes me think someone could plausibly construct this as some kind of recruiting gambit for the company and not the unequivocally good cause (which of course would be a valid benefit, but only as far as others choice to perceive such as unequivocally good [i.e. act as a negative signal of sorts, kind of like whiteboard interviews for experienced devs]). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546

ethanbond 11y ago
Fair, but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want to." You can of course choose not to see goodness if you don't want to. I also don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that way. I'm not quite sure what evidence there is for this assertion that miscategorization is happening. The categories seem to be pretty straightforward. Unless you're accusing them of blatantly lying, I don't see the criticism here. Examples directly from Polaris' "Facts" page: "The International Labour Organization estimates that there are 20.9 million victims of human trafficking globally... 68% of them are trapped in forced labor." Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an applicable term. Further, this is not some charity-wide conspiracy of definition manipulation. In fact, on Polaris's "Labor Trafficking" page, you only ever see the 14.2 million figure: people forced into labor. I assume the most readily manipulated figure would be the last one on the page: "31% of undocumented Spanish-speaking migrant workers interviewed in San Diego County had experienced labor trafficking." If it is the case that NGO's are seizing situations like these to call every illegal immigrant who utilizes a coyote to cross the border a "victim of trafficking," then certainly it would surface in this figure. View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf, Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense. If these people are miscategorizing things, I simply can't see how. If they are lying, then I'd like to see evidence that that's the case. More evidence than an anonymous person claiming to be writing a thesis on the topic would be nice. Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia.
- cinquemb 11y ago
  >but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want to." You are free to your own opinions… one doesn't need to believe, and one shouldn't have to be swayed by stat inflation to address problems. >I also don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that way. I guess you have missed over the years bad press companies received because on threads of hn (Palantir may be above this affecting their bottom line though not all companies are as fortunate)… I've already asked for more sources from the commenter beyond the post they shared that pointed to some of the discrepancies in how people are counting, because I would actually be interested in seeing/collecting more accurate data from more nuanced definitions for myself (and it appears others in this thread would like to see that to). >Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an applicable term. Sure, lets hand wave stat inflation and questionable definitions, and accept NGO's/governments/large corps have no control whatsoever compared to individuals as actors in a given society in how they aggregate data and generate their pretty plots. >View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf, Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense. Ok, the definition makes sense, so lets just accept it prima facie, and not question it or think about how we could improve upon it in certain ways that minimize even further how certain parties are negatively affected? How would people learn anything if we approached problems like that all the time? So just because one states how they're defining something, it absolves them from critique if people disagree and wish for something more nuanced? lol >Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia. There would have to be a component of fear or anxiety for this to be true, which if one has neither (i.e. Me), casting such as paranoia in order to bolster ones argument because one may not think an NGO or its corporate sponsors are being upfront or relying on "not being able to do anything about the definitions we benefit from at the expense of others to the degree of which we are not certain", then one must not "believe" (not sure why we have to believe when we can look at the definitional flaws that can negatively affect certain populations lives they may be seeking out) anything can be good is pretty weak, when noting how certain parties mere existence hinges on such (or at least their marketing pitches lol)… people are free to believe all the stat inflation they want, its not my time or after tax currency being sucked into the church lol Do you work for Palantir or something? It would be good to know as I can not waste my time further hereticing in front of the choir.

ethanbond 11y ago

Fair, but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want to." You can of course choose not to see goodness if you don't want to. I also don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that way. I'm not quite sure what evidence there is for this assertion that miscategorization is happening. The categories seem to be pretty straightforward. Unless you're accusing them of blatantly lying, I don't see the criticism here. Examples directly from Polaris' "Facts" page: "The International Labour Organization estimates that there are 20.9 million victims of human trafficking globally... 68% of them are trapped in forced labor." Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an applicable term. Further, this is not some charity-wide conspiracy of definition manipulation. In fact, on Polaris's "Labor Trafficking" page, you only ever see the 14.2 million figure: people forced into labor. I assume the most readily manipulated figure would be the last one on the page: "31% of undocumented Spanish-speaking migrant workers interviewed in San Diego County had experienced labor trafficking." If it is the case that NGO's are seizing situations like these to call every illegal immigrant who utilizes a coyote to cross the border a "victim of trafficking," then certainly it would surface in this figure. View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf, Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense. If these people are miscategorizing things, I simply can't see how. If they are lying, then I'd like to see evidence that that's the case. More evidence than an anonymous person claiming to be writing a thesis on the topic would be nice. Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia.

cinquemb 11y ago
>but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want to." You are free to your own opinions… one doesn't need to believe, and one shouldn't have to be swayed by stat inflation to address problems. >I also don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that way. I guess you have missed over the years bad press companies received because on threads of hn (Palantir may be above this affecting their bottom line though not all companies are as fortunate)… I've already asked for more sources from the commenter beyond the post they shared that pointed to some of the discrepancies in how people are counting, because I would actually be interested in seeing/collecting more accurate data from more nuanced definitions for myself (and it appears others in this thread would like to see that to). >Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an applicable term. Sure, lets hand wave stat inflation and questionable definitions, and accept NGO's/governments/large corps have no control whatsoever compared to individuals as actors in a given society in how they aggregate data and generate their pretty plots. >View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf, Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense. Ok, the definition makes sense, so lets just accept it prima facie, and not question it or think about how we could improve upon it in certain ways that minimize even further how certain parties are negatively affected? How would people learn anything if we approached problems like that all the time? So just because one states how they're defining something, it absolves them from critique if people disagree and wish for something more nuanced? lol >Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia. There would have to be a component of fear or anxiety for this to be true, which if one has neither (i.e. Me), casting such as paranoia in order to bolster ones argument because one may not think an NGO or its corporate sponsors are being upfront or relying on "not being able to do anything about the definitions we benefit from at the expense of others to the degree of which we are not certain", then one must not "believe" (not sure why we have to believe when we can look at the definitional flaws that can negatively affect certain populations lives they may be seeking out) anything can be good is pretty weak, when noting how certain parties mere existence hinges on such (or at least their marketing pitches lol)… people are free to believe all the stat inflation they want, its not my time or after tax currency being sucked into the church lol Do you work for Palantir or something? It would be good to know as I can not waste my time further hereticing in front of the choir.