3 ms·

The whole article is essentially a long moan about how things have changed, and how the beancounters would like things to go back to normal because right now th

The whole article is essentially a long moan about how things have changed, and how the beancounters would like things to go back to normal because right now they no longer understand how to add stuff up. Example: "tiny payments for digital contributions might correct yet another problem, a misallocation of labour. If companies paid people for useful data, rather than mopping up what they leave behind as they use online services, then prices could nudge people towards more productive online activity." Correct a problem? A problem for who? Neither the consumer nor the provider appear to be in any kind of trouble. The use of "mopping up" implies that the acquisition of data is somehow accidental, and simple an act of unwanted stuff discarded by the visitor, whilst in truth it is an aggressive and intelligent machine that flenses data from the visitor. Finally "productive online activity" is completely fucking meaningless in this context. productive how? for whom? Yet another faux-intellectual bullshit piece by the Economist.

ForHackernews 9y ago
> Correct a problem? A problem for who? A problem for users' whose privacy is violated without their understanding, and for content providers, who have to cater to lowest-common-denominator clickbait nonsense.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  That isn't what the article said though, that is your own spin - the article doesn't talk about privacy violations at all in this context.
peterhartree 9y ago
> Correct a problem? A problem for who? Neither the consumer nor the provider appear to be in any kind of trouble. In a recent lecture at the RSA [1], James Williams (former Googler who worked on metrics and strategy for search advertising) makes the case that: - The ‘distractions’ produced by digital technologies are much more profound than minor ‘annoyances’ - So-called ‘persuasive’ design is undermining the human will and ‘militating against the possibility of all forms of self-determination’ - Beginning to ‘assert and defend our freedom of attention’ is an urgent moral and political task I'd recommend giving it a listen. Tristan Harris' recent TED talk offers a more popular primer [2]. [1] https://soundcloud.com/the_rsa/are-digital-technologies-making-politics-impossible https://soundcloud.com/the_rsa/are-digital-technologies-maki... [2] https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tricks_tech_companies_use_to_capture_your_attention https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tr...
- kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
  > Beginning to ‘assert and defend our freedom of attention’ is an urgent moral and political task This should've been done years ago with the billboards plastered around nearly every major city.
- mdekkers 9y ago
  Which is interesting, and thanks for the links, but this isn't what the Economist is talking about. The Economist is talking about the mis-allocation of labor - not a problem for the producer, not a problem for the consumer, a problem for the person that has to tot up the stats and make it fit the framework of capitalism. It is almost like people don't even care about the actual article, and only read what they want to see....

ForHackernews 9y ago

> Correct a problem? A problem for who? A problem for users' whose privacy is violated without their understanding, and for content providers, who have to cater to lowest-common-denominator clickbait nonsense.

mdekkers 9y ago
That isn't what the article said though, that is your own spin - the article doesn't talk about privacy violations at all in this context.

peterhartree 9y ago

> Correct a problem? A problem for who? Neither the consumer nor the provider appear to be in any kind of trouble. In a recent lecture at the RSA [1], James Williams (former Googler who worked on metrics and strategy for search advertising) makes the case that: - The ‘distractions’ produced by digital technologies are much more profound than minor ‘annoyances’ - So-called ‘persuasive’ design is undermining the human will and ‘militating against the possibility of all forms of self-determination’ - Beginning to ‘assert and defend our freedom of attention’ is an urgent moral and political task I'd recommend giving it a listen. Tristan Harris' recent TED talk offers a more popular primer [2]. [1] https://soundcloud.com/the_rsa/are-digital-technologies-making-politics-impossible https://soundcloud.com/the_rsa/are-digital-technologies-maki... [2] https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tricks_tech_companies_use_to_capture_your_attention https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_the_manipulative_tr...

kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
> Beginning to ‘assert and defend our freedom of attention’ is an urgent moral and political task This should've been done years ago with the billboards plastered around nearly every major city.
mdekkers 9y ago
Which is interesting, and thanks for the links, but this isn't what the Economist is talking about. The Economist is talking about the mis-allocation of labor - not a problem for the producer, not a problem for the consumer, a problem for the person that has to tot up the stats and make it fit the framework of capitalism. It is almost like people don't even care about the actual article, and only read what they want to see....