3 ms·

I know this is too late to get noticed much, but here's the truth: This is a race-to-the-bottom. Everyone in this whole area has to compete with whoever is the

I know this is too late to get noticed much, but here's the truth: This is a race-to-the-bottom. Everyone in this whole area has to compete with whoever is the scummiest exploiter unless they really go out of their way to sell their service with privacy and ethics as the top feature. So, some ethical niche services can exist, but meanwhile, everyone else is screwed, and network effects make any niche thing stay pretty irrelevant. The only way to avoid races-to-the-bottom in a competitive market is with real enforceable regulation that outlaws the worst shit and requires truly effective disclosures otherwise. That's not easy, sometimes it's impossible, and it often has major negative side-effects and problems, but whether or not we determine that regulation is worth it or not, we know that races-to-the-bottom are a real thing, so we can give some leeway that each company isn't actively trying to be malicious — they are just competing in a race-to-the-bottom situation (and we can reject the dogmatic free-market people who deny that this and all sorts of other natural market-failures exist).

Taek 10y ago
I agree that it's a race to the bottom but not that regulation is a way out. There are too many services employing too many engineers, and furthermore governments benefit from this massive surveillance. They pay for the results, and the direction in government today is towards less privacy, not more. And if you do win the regulation battle, you only win it for the current generation of tech. There will be more, and every decade the power of information collection will get stronger. I believe that we need to embrace the loss of privacy and ask ourselves how to transition to a world where one's personal history and daily life is freely available to the general public. I give it 30 years until we get there. The tech is certainly not going away.
- nojvek 10y ago
  The way I see it is until someone truly hacks Facebook and the data is used for really malicious purposes. Killing actual humans/ destroying bank accounts there is not enough of an incentive. If US didn't bomb Japan, the general public would not have the same fear of nuclear weapons that we have today.
- eriknstr 10y ago
  >I agree that it's a race to the bottom but not that regulation is a way out. There are too many services employing too many engineers, and furthermore governments benefit from this massive surveillance. They pay for the results, and the direction in government today is towards less privacy, not more. In Norway we have an independent administrative body of the government called Datatilsynet, known in English as The Norwegian Data Protection Authority. Wikipedia has a very short article about it in English [1] and a longer article in Norwegian [2]. For a translation of the Norwegian article, see [3]. Notably, the King and the Ministry may not instruct or reverse Datatilsynet's exercise of authority in the individual case according to law. So while some parts of a government might want to maximize data collection and surveillance, it is still possible to have other bodies of the government work to protect the privacy of its citizens. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Data_Protection_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Data_Protection_Auth... [2]: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatilsynet_(Norge) https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatilsynet_(Norge) [3]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fno.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatatilsynet_%28Norge%29&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Well, I didn't mean to imply that regulation was actually a feasible answer (it needs to be enforceable, non-captured, effective… hard to do). Maybe it's hopeless. I was just suggesting that races-to-the-bottom can only be solved with regulation or other systematic measures, not asking each player to refuse to participate. If you're right that regulation won't work, then you're probably also right that it's hopeless. There are some mitigating factors though, like if we push for software freedom and get rid of legal support for DRM… that at least will allow some level of control by technology users.

Taek 10y ago

I agree that it's a race to the bottom but not that regulation is a way out. There are too many services employing too many engineers, and furthermore governments benefit from this massive surveillance. They pay for the results, and the direction in government today is towards less privacy, not more. And if you do win the regulation battle, you only win it for the current generation of tech. There will be more, and every decade the power of information collection will get stronger. I believe that we need to embrace the loss of privacy and ask ourselves how to transition to a world where one's personal history and daily life is freely available to the general public. I give it 30 years until we get there. The tech is certainly not going away.

nojvek 10y ago
The way I see it is until someone truly hacks Facebook and the data is used for really malicious purposes. Killing actual humans/ destroying bank accounts there is not enough of an incentive. If US didn't bomb Japan, the general public would not have the same fear of nuclear weapons that we have today.
eriknstr 10y ago
>I agree that it's a race to the bottom but not that regulation is a way out. There are too many services employing too many engineers, and furthermore governments benefit from this massive surveillance. They pay for the results, and the direction in government today is towards less privacy, not more. In Norway we have an independent administrative body of the government called Datatilsynet, known in English as The Norwegian Data Protection Authority. Wikipedia has a very short article about it in English [1] and a longer article in Norwegian [2]. For a translation of the Norwegian article, see [3]. Notably, the King and the Ministry may not instruct or reverse Datatilsynet's exercise of authority in the individual case according to law. So while some parts of a government might want to maximize data collection and surveillance, it is still possible to have other bodies of the government work to protect the privacy of its citizens. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Data_Protection_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Data_Protection_Auth... [2]: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatilsynet_(Norge) https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatilsynet_(Norge) [3]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fno.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDatatilsynet_%28Norge%29&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
quadrangle 10y ago
Well, I didn't mean to imply that regulation was actually a feasible answer (it needs to be enforceable, non-captured, effective… hard to do). Maybe it's hopeless. I was just suggesting that races-to-the-bottom can only be solved with regulation or other systematic measures, not asking each player to refuse to participate. If you're right that regulation won't work, then you're probably also right that it's hopeless. There are some mitigating factors though, like if we push for software freedom and get rid of legal support for DRM… that at least will allow some level of control by technology users.