5 ms·

How does it lead to authoritarianism? You're making some pretty sweeping statements there..

by bpchaps 10y ago

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
Because there are no personal freedoms that cannot be taken away if negative externalities alone are a sufficient justification. Outright bans are the strictest form of regulation. They should only be used as a last resort. We don't even ban industrial scale cruelty towards animals and now we should ban voluntary trade in personal data? That seems completely out of proportion.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that externalities alone cannot ever be sufficient justification for a ban, no matter how bad the externalities are?
  - jerf 10y ago
    No. "X is not always a sufficient reason" != "X is never a sufficient reason."
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    No, I just think the bar for banning consenting adults from entering into an agreement should be very high, because the negative externalities of doing it too often are extremely grave as well.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? I guess I would agree with that. Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy that is quite common in stable democracies: You are usually not allowed to prove to third parties how you voted in an election. That's only because of the externalities that that can have on the democracy if third parties can pressure you into voting a certain way/can buy your votes.
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        >Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? Not just that, it's also about weighing the restrictions on personal freedoms against the extent of negative externalities. In some cases the protection of personal freedoms is absolute. The ban on torture is a precedent for that. >Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy [...] It's a precedent only if it's comparable, which it isn't. You are overstating your case. There is no reason to believe that letting an algorithm parse some of your data for clues as to what you might want to buy makes democracy fall apart. What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. Where that happens, people will simply stop volunteering so much private information. They don't need to be banned from doing that.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        > What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. What if companies analyze data for political reasons? > Where that happens, people will simply stop volunteering so much private information. They don't need to be banned from doing that. Except that they don't. Heard of a certain Edward Snowden, maybe? Except that they can't because the data is already there and isn't under the control of the affected people? Except that the nature of data is that people don't know how it's being processed? Except that there are network effects that limit people's actual freedom to decline using a quasi-monopolist's services? Your argument could pretty much be applied to the Stasi in the GDR: Do you have an idea what the consequences were when individuals simply stopped providing more data?
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        I never disputed that there are dangers and negative externalities to lack of privacy. But democracy falling apart isn't one of them. Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. Where there is a lack of democracy, privacy is often taken away in order to make it easier to oppress political opponents. But giving up some privacy in exchange for services doesn't make that happen. Yes the Stasi would love Facebook's database, but using Facebook doesn't cause the Stasi. Snowden isn't proof of that at either. The NSA hasn't hunted down and imprisoned supporters of Bernie Sanders after all, has it? American democracy hasn't fallen apart and where it is lacking it has little to do with Facebook. But please don't get me wrong. I find it very problematic when governments scan everybody's data. It could have an effect on how people behave even if it doesn't make democracy fall apart. It may deter people from doing perferctly legal things because they could be misinterpreted. None of that is voluntary though. I haven't given the NSA permission to scan my data at all. I don't use Facbook and I am very careful with information I make available publicly. I just don't feel very threatened by any negative externalities created by those who choose to use Facebook. My problem with your line of thinking is that you are extrapolating every single danger to the extreme until you arrive at the conclusion that people must be banned from ever making these choices. As I said, you can ban everything based on that sort of thinking.
- bpchaps 10y ago
  Fwiw, I actually agree with much of what you're saying. The contention others seem to be having might just be from perceived absolutism. Funny, since you're actually arguing for the opposite.

How does it lead to authoritarianism? You're making some pretty sweeping statements there..

by bpchaps 10y ago

How does it lead to authoritarianism? You're making some pretty sweeping statements there..

Because there are no personal freedoms that cannot be taken away if negative externalities alone are a sufficient justification. Outright bans are the strictest form of regulation. They should only be used as a last resort. We don't even ban industrial scale cruelty towards animals and now we should ban voluntary trade in personal data? That seems completely out of proportion.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
Are you suggesting that externalities alone cannot ever be sufficient justification for a ban, no matter how bad the externalities are?
- jerf 10y ago
  No. "X is not always a sufficient reason" != "X is never a sufficient reason."
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  No, I just think the bar for banning consenting adults from entering into an agreement should be very high, because the negative externalities of doing it too often are extremely grave as well.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? I guess I would agree with that. Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy that is quite common in stable democracies: You are usually not allowed to prove to third parties how you voted in an election. That's only because of the externalities that that can have on the democracy if third parties can pressure you into voting a certain way/can buy your votes.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      >Which seems to be a different argument entirely, namely one of weighing the positive externalities against the negative externalities? Not just that, it's also about weighing the restrictions on personal freedoms against the extent of negative externalities. In some cases the protection of personal freedoms is absolute. The ban on torture is a precedent for that. >Now, there is actually precedent for banning consenting adults from sharing private information in order to ensure the survival of the democracy [...] It's a precedent only if it's comparable, which it isn't. You are overstating your case. There is no reason to believe that letting an algorithm parse some of your data for clues as to what you might want to buy makes democracy fall apart. What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. Where that happens, people will simply stop volunteering so much private information. They don't need to be banned from doing that.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        > What is likely to have an effect on democracy is when governments analyze data for political reasons. What if companies analyze data for political reasons? > Where that happens, people will simply stop volunteering so much private information. They don't need to be banned from doing that. Except that they don't. Heard of a certain Edward Snowden, maybe? Except that they can't because the data is already there and isn't under the control of the affected people? Except that the nature of data is that people don't know how it's being processed? Except that there are network effects that limit people's actual freedom to decline using a quasi-monopolist's services? Your argument could pretty much be applied to the Stasi in the GDR: Do you have an idea what the consequences were when individuals simply stopped providing more data?
        fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        I never disputed that there are dangers and negative externalities to lack of privacy. But democracy falling apart isn't one of them. Your logic is flawed. You are reversing cause and effect. Where there is a lack of democracy, privacy is often taken away in order to make it easier to oppress political opponents. But giving up some privacy in exchange for services doesn't make that happen. Yes the Stasi would love Facebook's database, but using Facebook doesn't cause the Stasi. Snowden isn't proof of that at either. The NSA hasn't hunted down and imprisoned supporters of Bernie Sanders after all, has it? American democracy hasn't fallen apart and where it is lacking it has little to do with Facebook. But please don't get me wrong. I find it very problematic when governments scan everybody's data. It could have an effect on how people behave even if it doesn't make democracy fall apart. It may deter people from doing perferctly legal things because they could be misinterpreted. None of that is voluntary though. I haven't given the NSA permission to scan my data at all. I don't use Facbook and I am very careful with information I make available publicly. I just don't feel very threatened by any negative externalities created by those who choose to use Facebook. My problem with your line of thinking is that you are extrapolating every single danger to the extreme until you arrive at the conclusion that people must be banned from ever making these choices. As I said, you can ban everything based on that sort of thinking.
bpchaps 10y ago
Fwiw, I actually agree with much of what you're saying. The contention others seem to be having might just be from perceived absolutism. Funny, since you're actually arguing for the opposite.