5 ms·

To me the frightening thing is that people seem to be unable to differentiate between no data and the negative case. For example * No Fitbit data == "You're in

To me the frightening thing is that people seem to be unable to differentiate between no data and the negative case. For example * No Fitbit data == "You're inactive * No Open source github commits == "you dont like code" * Few Facebook friends == "you dont have friends" * Few Instagram posts == "You dont do anything"

jackweirdy 9y ago
Currently playing the same game with my health insurance, who suggest linking my watch health metrics to "boost my health score". (I'm currently bronze and I could be at Silver! Someone must have watched the gamification TED talk). Not wanting my insurer to have that data presumably to them means I'm unfit, rather than skeptical of what they're going to do with it
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  Just get a dog and tie it to their collar. I'm joking of course, I do not condone insurance fraud.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
    In this case, you probably should :-)
- the8472 9y ago
  First they have to know or infer with reasonable certainty that you have a fitness tracker to even attempt a further inference that you're not sharing the data because you're lazy. So if they somehow can profile you well enough to know that you already lost the privacy game.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    Not at all; it's in their best interests to lump the "no data provided" bucket somewhere around the average, perhaps below as an incentive to provide the data. They don't have to know if you have a fitness tracker at all to enact such a policy.
dogruck 9y ago
You're right, but I think you're overly simplifying the problem by ignoring the alternatives. At one end of the spectrum, insurance companies, or dating apps, have essentially no data. So every person is charged equally, which I think is unfair (some might disagree). To improve, companies collect data via a questionnaire. The obvious problem is people lie -- often unintentionally. The next step is to use genuine data. And, there are certainly issues with that. It's just not clear to me that the issues outweigh the problems with the alternative scenarios.
- bsaul 9y ago
  "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" As someone who worked for an online marketing company and designed its tracking system, i can tell you that’s the most frightening part of it. Everything is logic,and is a logical evolution or improvement of the previous state. Every intrusion of foreign company into your private life will be done for your own good, or at least for the benefit of the society. You don’t even need an evil genius at the head of some powerful tech company for 1984 to happen, because it’s simply the logic of the whole system we’re living it, that’s meant to go this road.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I hear you. I'm concerned about all of the privacy that we are giving away. That's one reason I'm not on Facebook, and decline most "deals" at retailers. My point is that it's important to consider all of the trade offs. The Algos have pros and cons.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  > The next step is to use genuine data. Or the way the world is going the next step is a startup that sells an arm that tricks smart watches into thinking they are on a human arm that is exercising regularly...
  - dogruck 9y ago
    Sure, or when your doctor asks, "how much alcohol do you drink each week?" you answer, "not much -- maybe a glass of wine on Friday and Saturday."
Yetanfou 9y ago
It won't be long before "No Twitter, no Facebook, no Instagram, no Snapchat, no G+, no nothing" will translate to "a catch" in dating app terms: someone with whom to share life as we know it, not as we want others to think we live it. Then again, maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence (or integrity) of dating app purveyors. After all, 'real' people are so hard to monetise...
- bdamm 9y ago
  I suspect that people who avoid social networks will start to form increasingly independent social circles from people who generally engage in social networks. Furthermore, these circles will change over the lifetime of individuals. For example, I was an avid user of IRC back in the late '90s. That medium formed my social experience and those people became many of my life-long friends. These days many of my friends from that time (including myself) don't use social networks much at all; Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter included. We've been there, done that, and are finding human engagement without social networks to be more satisfying. Consequently, my contemporary relationships are not significantly maintained through social networks and whether someone is or is not on Facebook or Instagram has no bearing on whether my relationships are maintained. A wise friend of mine once said "Facebook is for people you don't know!"
  - j45 9y ago
    IRC is a successful form of social media that centered around communication and enriched our physical lives. It's nice to hear others have also held onto the friendships from that time. When I hear people excited about slack, I see it as the modern day irc client, also focused around communication. ICQ/AIM took a big chunk out of irc, but it still didn't allow people to connect in channels. Now we have networks where people aren't communicating as much as sharing and interacting with moments.
    - noir_lord 9y ago
      Not only held on to them but still making new ones, I hang around in an offtopic channel for a framework I don't even use any more because I made friends with a bunch of the people in there, hell I'd say half the channel doesn't use that framework anymore but a lot of us are solo devs in companies that aren't software companies so it's become our de facto water cooler.
leggomylibro 9y ago
It becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you append with other people and don't use those services. You might have a few close friends, have a favorite jogging route, make cool stuff, etc. But from the perspective of people heavily invested in those platforms, you don't. And as the number of people on these monoplatforms trends towards 100%... Well, I dunno, maybe it's just big cities that are like that.
QAPereo 9y ago
Strictly speaking, most people wouldn’t even understand your first sentence.

jackweirdy 9y ago

Currently playing the same game with my health insurance, who suggest linking my watch health metrics to "boost my health score". (I'm currently bronze and I could be at Silver! Someone must have watched the gamification TED talk). Not wanting my insurer to have that data presumably to them means I'm unfit, rather than skeptical of what they're going to do with it

throwaway2016a 9y ago
Just get a dog and tie it to their collar. I'm joking of course, I do not condone insurance fraud.
- HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
  In this case, you probably should :-)
the8472 9y ago
First they have to know or infer with reasonable certainty that you have a fitness tracker to even attempt a further inference that you're not sharing the data because you're lazy. So if they somehow can profile you well enough to know that you already lost the privacy game.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  Not at all; it's in their best interests to lump the "no data provided" bucket somewhere around the average, perhaps below as an incentive to provide the data. They don't have to know if you have a fitness tracker at all to enact such a policy.

dogruck 9y ago

You're right, but I think you're overly simplifying the problem by ignoring the alternatives. At one end of the spectrum, insurance companies, or dating apps, have essentially no data. So every person is charged equally, which I think is unfair (some might disagree). To improve, companies collect data via a questionnaire. The obvious problem is people lie -- often unintentionally. The next step is to use genuine data. And, there are certainly issues with that. It's just not clear to me that the issues outweigh the problems with the alternative scenarios.

bsaul 9y ago
"the road to hell is paved with good intentions" As someone who worked for an online marketing company and designed its tracking system, i can tell you that’s the most frightening part of it. Everything is logic,and is a logical evolution or improvement of the previous state. Every intrusion of foreign company into your private life will be done for your own good, or at least for the benefit of the society. You don’t even need an evil genius at the head of some powerful tech company for 1984 to happen, because it’s simply the logic of the whole system we’re living it, that’s meant to go this road.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I hear you. I'm concerned about all of the privacy that we are giving away. That's one reason I'm not on Facebook, and decline most "deals" at retailers. My point is that it's important to consider all of the trade offs. The Algos have pros and cons.
noir_lord 9y ago
> The next step is to use genuine data. Or the way the world is going the next step is a startup that sells an arm that tricks smart watches into thinking they are on a human arm that is exercising regularly...
- dogruck 9y ago
  Sure, or when your doctor asks, "how much alcohol do you drink each week?" you answer, "not much -- maybe a glass of wine on Friday and Saturday."

Yetanfou 9y ago

It won't be long before "No Twitter, no Facebook, no Instagram, no Snapchat, no G+, no nothing" will translate to "a catch" in dating app terms: someone with whom to share life as we know it, not as we want others to think we live it. Then again, maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence (or integrity) of dating app purveyors. After all, 'real' people are so hard to monetise...

bdamm 9y ago
I suspect that people who avoid social networks will start to form increasingly independent social circles from people who generally engage in social networks. Furthermore, these circles will change over the lifetime of individuals. For example, I was an avid user of IRC back in the late '90s. That medium formed my social experience and those people became many of my life-long friends. These days many of my friends from that time (including myself) don't use social networks much at all; Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter included. We've been there, done that, and are finding human engagement without social networks to be more satisfying. Consequently, my contemporary relationships are not significantly maintained through social networks and whether someone is or is not on Facebook or Instagram has no bearing on whether my relationships are maintained. A wise friend of mine once said "Facebook is for people you don't know!"
- j45 9y ago
  IRC is a successful form of social media that centered around communication and enriched our physical lives. It's nice to hear others have also held onto the friendships from that time. When I hear people excited about slack, I see it as the modern day irc client, also focused around communication. ICQ/AIM took a big chunk out of irc, but it still didn't allow people to connect in channels. Now we have networks where people aren't communicating as much as sharing and interacting with moments.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    Not only held on to them but still making new ones, I hang around in an offtopic channel for a framework I don't even use any more because I made friends with a bunch of the people in there, hell I'd say half the channel doesn't use that framework anymore but a lot of us are solo devs in companies that aren't software companies so it's become our de facto water cooler.

leggomylibro 9y ago

It becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you append with other people and don't use those services. You might have a few close friends, have a favorite jogging route, make cool stuff, etc. But from the perspective of people heavily invested in those platforms, you don't. And as the number of people on these monoplatforms trends towards 100%... Well, I dunno, maybe it's just big cities that are like that.

QAPereo 9y ago

Strictly speaking, most people wouldn’t even understand your first sentence.