4 ms·

Data Science is evil :) There are a couple of big "tech-is-evil" forces that I think are responsible for a good chunk of this sentiment. The first is advertis

Data Science is evil :) There are a couple of big "tech-is-evil" forces that I think are responsible for a good chunk of this sentiment. The first is advertising. Ads are slightly evil anyway. You're going to make us watch an ad during intermission, and that'll make us buy your brand of washing powder? Sounds kind of evil. It never sat right with people, but it funded free news and entertainment so... we're used to this now. In "tech", Google & FB's ecosystem of modern advertising is all about individuals. It's far more efficient, so long as you have lots of data. Mad Men & mass appeal out. Data nerds in. The 2nd evil is "optimization." Data Science determines what you see on FB & Google, info bubbles, etc.. These make decisions based on what humans might call "values." The evil data nerds call them optimization goals. If I email you a saucy sentence about your sister's poi...[read more] at 7:36 will you check FB before your morning piss? Do you post more when you're angered or incensed? Insulted or pandered to? Evil, no? At least distasteful.. Data nerds! So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers.

gaius 9y ago
Using ML/DS to de-anonymize people is very definitely evil.
dhimes 9y ago
It's far more efficient I'm not sure we know this yet. They sell it like it is, and it seems like a good idea that makes sense, but at this point online ads perform in the same way as TV ads: They give us brand exposure. Most of the time I do an internet search I am not trying to purchase something, and I've never seen an ad that made me say as a result of that search "I need that" and make a purchase. When I'm doing an internet search I am looking for information. When I want to buy something I go to Amazon and search their inventory. From everything I've seen on HN I'm not alone in this.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ashark 9y ago
> So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers. Nah. Banning collecting, storing, and exploiting data on people for any but a small set of very narrow purposes would do the trick.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  ”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Better safe than sorry. No numbers. No nerds. No evil.
  - ashark 9y ago
    > ”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Eh, not really. I don't see how you can maintain this position without concluding that laws aren't possible at all. And laws aren't code. Judges can and do smack people down for being too "clever" in how they interpret them. The 5-year-old's "I'm not touching you!" defense generally doesn't work. Frankly I can't tell if you're actually advocating such a ban on "numbers" or trying to reductio any notions of regulation of data collection and use to death. If the latter, I think you'll need to try harder. I find it fairly easy to imagine laws that'd make collecting people's data something most businesses try to avoid unless they absolutely must have it to operate, and in the latter case severely restricts the kinds of commerce they can engage in while holding said data. If skirting regulations that happens to involve words that are intended to mean things (so, all regulations) were so trivial companies wouldn't be so concerned about them, I think. Fact is lots of regulations are inconvenient to them, and involve terms no less inherently ambiguous than the ones you called out, which are nevertheless refined and defined to sufficient precision to be effective.
    - dalbasal 9y ago
      >>I can't tell if you're actually advocating... I'm just being silly, mostly. I don't the answers. I have been involved with legislation a little though, and quite a lot with “regulations” (in the regulated industries sense). The 5 year old defence holds water in a surprising number of cases. The problem of definitions in law is real, and kind of reminiscent of the problem of specifications in software. For example, defining “allowable uses” is tricky because determining intent is (notoriously) tricky in law. Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance.

gaius 9y ago

Using ML/DS to de-anonymize people is very definitely evil.

dhimes 9y ago

It's far more efficient I'm not sure we know this yet. They sell it like it is, and it seems like a good idea that makes sense, but at this point online ads perform in the same way as TV ads: They give us brand exposure. Most of the time I do an internet search I am not trying to purchase something, and I've never seen an ad that made me say as a result of that search "I need that" and make a purchase. When I'm doing an internet search I am looking for information. When I want to buy something I go to Amazon and search their inventory. From everything I've seen on HN I'm not alone in this.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ashark 9y ago

> So... data science is evil and the only way to stop it is a total ban numbers. Nah. Banning collecting, storing, and exploiting data on people for any but a small set of very narrow purposes would do the trick.

dalbasal 9y ago
”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Better safe than sorry. No numbers. No nerds. No evil.
- ashark 9y ago
  > ”Small set of very narrow purposes” or even “data” are too difficult to define legally. There’ll be loopholes to exploit. Eh, not really. I don't see how you can maintain this position without concluding that laws aren't possible at all. And laws aren't code. Judges can and do smack people down for being too "clever" in how they interpret them. The 5-year-old's "I'm not touching you!" defense generally doesn't work. Frankly I can't tell if you're actually advocating such a ban on "numbers" or trying to reductio any notions of regulation of data collection and use to death. If the latter, I think you'll need to try harder. I find it fairly easy to imagine laws that'd make collecting people's data something most businesses try to avoid unless they absolutely must have it to operate, and in the latter case severely restricts the kinds of commerce they can engage in while holding said data. If skirting regulations that happens to involve words that are intended to mean things (so, all regulations) were so trivial companies wouldn't be so concerned about them, I think. Fact is lots of regulations are inconvenient to them, and involve terms no less inherently ambiguous than the ones you called out, which are nevertheless refined and defined to sufficient precision to be effective.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    >>I can't tell if you're actually advocating... I'm just being silly, mostly. I don't the answers. I have been involved with legislation a little though, and quite a lot with “regulations” (in the regulated industries sense). The 5 year old defence holds water in a surprising number of cases. The problem of definitions in law is real, and kind of reminiscent of the problem of specifications in software. For example, defining “allowable uses” is tricky because determining intent is (notoriously) tricky in law. Legislation is a tool. It has lots of hangups, a legacy from thousands of years of history. It’s not always the best tool for the job. I’m not an anarchist, I just feel we’re get more milage from better browser behaviour and defaults than laws in this particular instance.