3 ms·

I think we can agree at least on one thing. Lack of privacy makes undemocratic regimes more effective (at oppressing people) and possibly longer lasting provide

I think we can agree at least on one thing. Lack of privacy makes undemocratic regimes more effective (at oppressing people) and possibly longer lasting provided they can actually access any data that people give up to advertisers. I'm not convinced that this is reason enough to ban advertising based business models in democratic countries. We can't live our lives preparing for the day democracy ceases to exist. Any negative effect the lack of privacy has on stable democracies seems small and rather speculative in the first place. I don't believe it's a real threat. You do believe that. So we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Also, I'm not convinced that globally the effect of Facebook, Google or Twitter on democracy is a negative one. On the contrary. Free services provided by overseas companies are often the only way for people in undemocratic countries to get around their local police state. Pay services are even more at odds with privacy than ad based business models.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> I think we can agree at least on one thing. Lack of privacy makes undemocratic regimes more effective (at oppressing people) and possibly longer lasting provided they can actually access any data that people give up to advertisers. Well, yes, but I think it's a mistake to divide the world into "undemocratic regimes" and "democratic paradise". It's a sliding scale and not a binary distinction, and every democracy on earth has some rather undemocratic stuff going on. > I'm not convinced that this is reason enough to ban advertising based business models in democratic countries. Not advertising based business models, but surveillance based business models. > We can't live our lives preparing for the day democracy ceases to exist. The point isn't to prepare for the day democracy ceases to exist, but to prevent it from ceasing to exist. Why can't we do that? > Any negative effect the lack of privacy has on stable democracies seems small and rather speculative in the first place. How do you know that? > I don't believe it's a real threat. You do believe that. So we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Nope, we don't have to "agree to disagree". I don't just believe that because I believe that, I believe that for what I think are good reasons, which can be examined for their logical consistency and for consistency with reality/evidence. Now, possibly you aren't interested in doing that, which is your decision to make, but that's not some kind of unavoidable fate, it's simply your disinterest in the matter. > Also, I'm not convinced that globally the effect of Facebook, Google or Twitter on democracy is a negative one. On the contrary. Free services provided by overseas companies are often the only way for people in undemocratic countries to get around their local police state. Pay services are even more at odds with privacy than ad based business models. Possibly. Though it should be noted that free services do not necessarily have to be surveillance-based services. There are lots of free to use IRC networks, for example. Or Tor is also free to use. But those are not surveillance-based offerings. And not even advertisement has to be surveillance-based.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  >> Any negative effect the lack of privacy has on stable democracies seems small and rather speculative in the first place. >How do you know that? I don't claim to know anything with any certainty. That's why I used the word "seems". You are the one who is making extraordinary claims based on extremely thin evidence. You are claiming with great certainty that giving up any private data to advertisers makes democracy fall apart, and yet you are unable to point to a single stable democracy that has fallen apart for that reason. Your sample size is zero. >I believe that for what I think are good reasons, which can be examined for their logical consistency and for consistency with reality/evidence. I have examined your reasons, and even though I can follow you on many individual details, I find your main conclusion contrived, exaggerated and inconsistent with the thin evidence we have. You are overstating your case. This is a very common way in which predictions of doom tend to go wrong. Take one aspect, follow it to extreme conclusions as if there were no other variables or counter forces or reactions to what is happening. This isn't logic or consistency. And this lack of a good model starts where we haven't even discussed what privacy or private data is in the first place. It's definitely not one thing that you can switch either on or off. We always have to trust someone with some of our data. Much of our "private" data isn't ours exclusively as it may be about interactions with others. The data we give up to advertisers isn't used exclusivly for advertising either. It's also used to provide some of the services we want (like search or spam filtering). "Ban it all!" is neither proportionate nor even possible. And even if I did follow your argument that giving up any privacy at all makes democracy fall apart, I see no alternatives to advertising that are better for privacy. Just look at the numbers involved and you will quickly find that funding everything like Tor or a few IRC channels is impossible. Donations, self-funding and sponsorship involve payment and are subject to extremely detailed surveillance. There is nothing more heavily regulated and traced than payment and you can be absolutely sure that governments will never allow large anonymous money flows because everything that could fund something like a Google data center could also fund organized crime and terrorism. That said, I also see a lot of negatives in the excessive and brazen behavior of the ad industry, and I also think there is a need for regulation. A better regulated ad model is our best shot at more privacy and fewer negative externalities.
  - 10y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago

> I think we can agree at least on one thing. Lack of privacy makes undemocratic regimes more effective (at oppressing people) and possibly longer lasting provided they can actually access any data that people give up to advertisers. Well, yes, but I think it's a mistake to divide the world into "undemocratic regimes" and "democratic paradise". It's a sliding scale and not a binary distinction, and every democracy on earth has some rather undemocratic stuff going on. > I'm not convinced that this is reason enough to ban advertising based business models in democratic countries. Not advertising based business models, but surveillance based business models. > We can't live our lives preparing for the day democracy ceases to exist. The point isn't to prepare for the day democracy ceases to exist, but to prevent it from ceasing to exist. Why can't we do that? > Any negative effect the lack of privacy has on stable democracies seems small and rather speculative in the first place. How do you know that? > I don't believe it's a real threat. You do believe that. So we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Nope, we don't have to "agree to disagree". I don't just believe that because I believe that, I believe that for what I think are good reasons, which can be examined for their logical consistency and for consistency with reality/evidence. Now, possibly you aren't interested in doing that, which is your decision to make, but that's not some kind of unavoidable fate, it's simply your disinterest in the matter. > Also, I'm not convinced that globally the effect of Facebook, Google or Twitter on democracy is a negative one. On the contrary. Free services provided by overseas companies are often the only way for people in undemocratic countries to get around their local police state. Pay services are even more at odds with privacy than ad based business models. Possibly. Though it should be noted that free services do not necessarily have to be surveillance-based services. There are lots of free to use IRC networks, for example. Or Tor is also free to use. But those are not surveillance-based offerings. And not even advertisement has to be surveillance-based.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
>> Any negative effect the lack of privacy has on stable democracies seems small and rather speculative in the first place. >How do you know that? I don't claim to know anything with any certainty. That's why I used the word "seems". You are the one who is making extraordinary claims based on extremely thin evidence. You are claiming with great certainty that giving up any private data to advertisers makes democracy fall apart, and yet you are unable to point to a single stable democracy that has fallen apart for that reason. Your sample size is zero. >I believe that for what I think are good reasons, which can be examined for their logical consistency and for consistency with reality/evidence. I have examined your reasons, and even though I can follow you on many individual details, I find your main conclusion contrived, exaggerated and inconsistent with the thin evidence we have. You are overstating your case. This is a very common way in which predictions of doom tend to go wrong. Take one aspect, follow it to extreme conclusions as if there were no other variables or counter forces or reactions to what is happening. This isn't logic or consistency. And this lack of a good model starts where we haven't even discussed what privacy or private data is in the first place. It's definitely not one thing that you can switch either on or off. We always have to trust someone with some of our data. Much of our "private" data isn't ours exclusively as it may be about interactions with others. The data we give up to advertisers isn't used exclusivly for advertising either. It's also used to provide some of the services we want (like search or spam filtering). "Ban it all!" is neither proportionate nor even possible. And even if I did follow your argument that giving up any privacy at all makes democracy fall apart, I see no alternatives to advertising that are better for privacy. Just look at the numbers involved and you will quickly find that funding everything like Tor or a few IRC channels is impossible. Donations, self-funding and sponsorship involve payment and are subject to extremely detailed surveillance. There is nothing more heavily regulated and traced than payment and you can be absolutely sure that governments will never allow large anonymous money flows because everything that could fund something like a Google data center could also fund organized crime and terrorism. That said, I also see a lot of negatives in the excessive and brazen behavior of the ad industry, and I also think there is a need for regulation. A better regulated ad model is our best shot at more privacy and fewer negative externalities.
- 10y ago