3 ms·

I sort of agree with you here, but I worry about pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Particularly, most of these forms of discrimination you've rightly poi

by beat 8y ago

I sort of agree with you here, but I worry about pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Particularly, most of these forms of discrimination you've rightly pointed out function independently of online privacy. Consider the authoritarian police reaction to people of color. That's not because they were googled. The problem is right there in the presence, in physical being. Cops don't bust people for appearing black on Facebook, but rather for appearing black while driving or walking in the park or something. Unpopular political/social opinions aren't a matter of online privacy, generally. This is stuff that people post on Twitter, in public comments on Facebook, etc. If being an online racist blows up in someone's face, it's not because of Amazon or Wells Fargo; it's because they're shouting it in a public theater where anyone can see. (Hence the modern bigot's concern with "free speech" really meaning not that they can say what they want, but rather that no one judges them for what they say.) Employment discrimination is widespread. And again, it's not about someone's online being, it's about their physical being. This is why so many startups are big young white dude sausage-fests. Like hires like. Are they discriminating? Sure. But not due to online privacy, but rather more pedestrian face-to-face matters. I can go farther here, but hopefully my point is clear. When it comes to personal discrimination, that's usually a problem of person, not privacy, and tightening privacy settings offers little protection.

extralego 8y ago
Your overall point is not clear to me, but I can affirm that I do not agree with your supporting arguments. My list was of examples, not reasons. And, of course, each has varying levels of impact. And how many reasons should one need to respect basic human privacy? Would you assert these human rights aren’t worth defending until they’ve been invaded? I just can’t see where the stipulation is, where the justification for your skepticism lies. Your point of you comparisons with face-to-face interactions are lost on me entirely. Race, demeanor, height, sex, weight, and more are all determinable with enough collected data, and discrimated on accordingly. It’s the data that makes the discrimination more similar to physical interaction in terms of affect, but more scalable. Physical interactions take far more time and necessitate an emotion of conscience, both of which are often undermined in electronic communication, and always undermined in the process of data collection. Similarly, I’m super confused about your point about political privacy. Are you seriously asserting everybody posts all of their political opinions on social media? Of course, I am referring to what they don’t post publicly. This should be a given, no? Anyhow, US law aggressively protects the ballots citizens cast in elections, and all the while any of these spying corporations readily determine this with a minuscule margin of error from citizen’s visited news outlets, search queries, social networks, etc. Anyone who has viewed their own personal Facebook data can confirm so. Of course, physical violence is not an immediate concern over the internet. If that’s your point, then OK. It’s lessened in both directions and this is a different topic entirely.

by beat 8y ago

extralego 8y ago

Your overall point is not clear to me, but I can affirm that I do not agree with your supporting arguments. My list was of examples, not reasons. And, of course, each has varying levels of impact. And how many reasons should one need to respect basic human privacy? Would you assert these human rights aren’t worth defending until they’ve been invaded? I just can’t see where the stipulation is, where the justification for your skepticism lies. Your point of you comparisons with face-to-face interactions are lost on me entirely. Race, demeanor, height, sex, weight, and more are all determinable with enough collected data, and discrimated on accordingly. It’s the data that makes the discrimination more similar to physical interaction in terms of affect, but more scalable. Physical interactions take far more time and necessitate an emotion of conscience, both of which are often undermined in electronic communication, and always undermined in the process of data collection. Similarly, I’m super confused about your point about political privacy. Are you seriously asserting everybody posts all of their political opinions on social media? Of course, I am referring to what they don’t post publicly. This should be a given, no? Anyhow, US law aggressively protects the ballots citizens cast in elections, and all the while any of these spying corporations readily determine this with a minuscule margin of error from citizen’s visited news outlets, search queries, social networks, etc. Anyone who has viewed their own personal Facebook data can confirm so. Of course, physical violence is not an immediate concern over the internet. If that’s your point, then OK. It’s lessened in both directions and this is a different topic entirely.