3 ms·

> What is "that information" in the case of this OkCupid study, and what is the "barrier," before and after the research was published? To clarify, I'm contest

> What is "that information" in the case of this OkCupid study, and what is the "barrier," before and after the research was published? To clarify, I'm contesting this statement: > Perhaps a better use of this soapbox, instead of lambasting the researchers, would be to raise awareness of the fact that what you put onto the Internet is public. on the grounds that, even if we were talking entirely about information that is already 100% 'public', there are ethical concerns with making already-public information more readily accessible (and therefore easier to use for nefarious purposes). Doxxing is an easy example because most people generally agree that it crosses some sort of ethical line, and there are plenty of clear examples where doxxed information has been used for nefarious purposes (ie, to harass, stalk, and/or abuse the victim). In other words, I'm not saying that all of the information in this particular case was already public. I'm saying that focusing on that distinction is a distraction from the underlying issue.

chatmasta 10y ago
Yes, and I'm contesting the statement that this research made any information "more readily accessible." In what way was information inaccessible before the study, and accessible afterward? The only qualifying scenario I can think of is if someone deleted their profile during the study, and it "reappeared" as a result of the study publishing its data.
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  There's a difference between "making more accessible" and "making accessible". The latter means that information that was _inaccessible_ was made accessible (ergo: you couldn't access the information before the event). The former is less constrained: it just means that whatever state of accessibility the information was in, it is now easier to access. As an example: digitizing a book that is available for free to anyone who goes to Public Library One in Big City makes it more accessible (because I can access it from the other side of the world while eating soup) even though it wasn't _inaccessible_ before.

chatmasta 10y ago

Yes, and I'm contesting the statement that this research made any information "more readily accessible." In what way was information inaccessible before the study, and accessible afterward? The only qualifying scenario I can think of is if someone deleted their profile during the study, and it "reappeared" as a result of the study publishing its data.

sinxoveretothex 10y ago
There's a difference between "making more accessible" and "making accessible". The latter means that information that was _inaccessible_ was made accessible (ergo: you couldn't access the information before the event). The former is less constrained: it just means that whatever state of accessibility the information was in, it is now easier to access. As an example: digitizing a book that is available for free to anyone who goes to Public Library One in Big City makes it more accessible (because I can access it from the other side of the world while eating soup) even though it wasn't _inaccessible_ before.