7 ms·

I get annoyed even by the purported advantages of data collection, like Youtube or Amazon recommendations. Just because I curiously clicked on a stream of data

by ex3xu 8y ago

I get annoyed even by the purported advantages of data collection, like Youtube or Amazon recommendations. Just because I curiously clicked on a stream of data points six weeks ago does not mean I suddenly want to be inundated with more of that random tangent today. So I hate logical positivism. From logical positivism we get the philosophical foundation of modern tracking and advertising, that every data point obtained about a subject is necessarily meaningful and actionable, and that which cannot be measured does not exist. From there we get the unhealthy Nielsen-style reductionist tendencies in marketing that believes all it needs to know about you is your age, race, gender, sexuality, and income bracket. I think Frankl's discussion on dimensional ontology is the most complete picture I've found of why this is a flawed point of view, though I think any person who has been discriminated against based solely on one of those criteria should be able to understand the limitations of that model. I hope we can start to understand better as a tech culture that, unfortunately, human beings are decidedly unscientific in the sense that past data collected will not always provide accurate conclusions about future behavior. People grow and change, and collecting data silently in the background and trying to draw actionable conclusions without active user input and feedback is a fundamentally inefficient process, with harms that can be quite difficult to measure, though this article articulates some of them quite well. I suppose I can imagine that if we lived in a society free from the incentives generating the kind of abuses this article lists, and someone has generated an algorithm that could help you find meaning and success and fulfillment and loving relationships based on all the tracking data you provide, I can imagine this to be the dream of big data for which the sacrifice of privacy might be a necessary one. But given that we still live in a society that prefers exploitation to altruism, what we can salvage of our privacy is still probably the best option until we can reach that next stage of our evolution.

candiodari 8y ago
You realize that you're just complaining "they" are not using your data well enough. You certainly can't realistically sort through youtube yourself, nor can you realistically find what you need on Amazon. Fact is you cannot use these sites realistically without these algorithms. It just can't be done. Or at least one can say, you can use Amazon and Youtube better when guided by these algorithms. I do think that it is the difference between not being able to use them at all and using them, but maybe you think it's just a bit less than that. (also logical positivism and inferring things through statistics are pretty much diametrically opposite things. No logical positivist is ever going to accept statistical evidence about anything, but no matter) > I suppose I can imagine that if we lived in a society free from exploitation, and someone has generated an algorithm that could help you find meaning and success and fulfillment based on all the tracking data. That's exactly what these algorithms do. They try to find what YOU would find meaningful and fulfilling and they really do try to give it to you. When that means money will be exchanged they prefer one vendor (that has paid them) over another (which hasn't, or paid less), but does that really change anything ?
- neffy 8y ago
  No, actually, I as an adult human being, am quite capable of using search, to find what I want. Now, I agree, search is also governed by algorithms - but I'm also quite capable of sitting there for a few minutes, paging through until I get past them to find what I want. I do not want anything controlling my filters, except me. Edge cases can be dealt with. Latex lovers need to learn that it's a text editor first. As for Amazon, I have never found their recommendations helpful, or bought anything via them. If Amazon wants to help me, it really needs to clean its house on fake recommendations, and bogus products.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - candiodari 8y ago
    A simple google search for, say, "string" confirms to me that what you say is not true. I program, so it shows me ... well not clothing. Things I would not want to sort through. So you should realize that even something as simple as search cannot work well without "using my information". And I very much want it to do that.
    - l0b0 8y ago
      If that were true, people would not be able to find anything useful on DuckDuckGo.com and similar sites. Tracking is definitely not a prerequisite for quality search.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=string&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=string&t=h_&ia=web https://www.google.com/search?q=string https://www.google.com/search?q=string Judge for yourself whether context matters. I suppose the results will differ from person to person, but I feel comfortable saying that while Duckduckgo isn't a lost cause, it contains a lot of bullshit to filter through. Example: > STRING: functional protein association networks > STRING is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure: it is one of > ELIXIR's Core Data Resources. Learn more > ... I mean ... really ? I suppose it must be a string, but, and maybe this is just me, I'm not looking for genetic manipulation tips or databases when I search for "string".
bordercases 8y ago
This is the probably the most erudite take I've seen on HN on the data collection issue, especially the comment on being over-reductionist. On one hand: not hard to do. On the other: I'm grateful that you did it. How can I get in touch, I'd love to talk to you more about this stuff.
- ex3xu 8y ago
  I added an email in my profile if there's something you wanted to discuss further.
whatshisface 8y ago
>So I hate logical positivism. From logical positivism we get the philosophical foundation of modern tracking and advertising, that every data point obtained about a subject is necessarily meaningful and actionable, and that which cannot be measured does not exist. That's a straw-man version of logical positivism. If you're able to talk about a failure of the measurement system, you've just measured the failure (by your senses, presumably). So, the positivists would say that it existed.
voidhorse 8y ago
You should check out the Frankfurt school if you haven’t, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, et al. They were fierce critics of the very sort of reductive and restrictive societal tendencies you’re arguing against here. Positivism is indeed poisonous, a beneficial poison in some ways, but poison nonetheless. Unfortunately, while some things have improved, a lot of the problems such thinkers diagnosed and fought against in the 40s-60s have gotten more severe—the technical edifice determines the lives of the human beings more than ever, and the possibility of alternatives that would increase freedom and not reduce human experience to subtle manipulation and organization by algorithmic and prescribed modes of behavior seems more and more distant.
- ex3xu 8y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate the recommendation.
- cutler 8y ago
  When I studied economics in the 1980s here in the UK I was dismayed to discover how much positivism implicitly dominated the economics curriculum. At A-level it was even more blatant with Lipsey's "Positive Economics" serving as a textbook for the whole course. Only the study of sociology enabled me to put this perspective in perspective. Lipsey's work presented the theories of supply and demand and Adam Smith's "invisible hand" as some kind of law of nature, the kind of gold sought by Comte and Durkheim. It was only the study of Marx's dialectical materialism which really opened my eyes about how positivism as taught in the economics curriculum was used to justify the capitalist system.

by ex3xu 8y ago

candiodari 8y ago

You realize that you're just complaining "they" are not using your data well enough. You certainly can't realistically sort through youtube yourself, nor can you realistically find what you need on Amazon. Fact is you cannot use these sites realistically without these algorithms. It just can't be done. Or at least one can say, you can use Amazon and Youtube better when guided by these algorithms. I do think that it is the difference between not being able to use them at all and using them, but maybe you think it's just a bit less than that. (also logical positivism and inferring things through statistics are pretty much diametrically opposite things. No logical positivist is ever going to accept statistical evidence about anything, but no matter) > I suppose I can imagine that if we lived in a society free from exploitation, and someone has generated an algorithm that could help you find meaning and success and fulfillment based on all the tracking data. That's exactly what these algorithms do. They try to find what YOU would find meaningful and fulfilling and they really do try to give it to you. When that means money will be exchanged they prefer one vendor (that has paid them) over another (which hasn't, or paid less), but does that really change anything ?

neffy 8y ago
No, actually, I as an adult human being, am quite capable of using search, to find what I want. Now, I agree, search is also governed by algorithms - but I'm also quite capable of sitting there for a few minutes, paging through until I get past them to find what I want. I do not want anything controlling my filters, except me. Edge cases can be dealt with. Latex lovers need to learn that it's a text editor first. As for Amazon, I have never found their recommendations helpful, or bought anything via them. If Amazon wants to help me, it really needs to clean its house on fake recommendations, and bogus products.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- candiodari 8y ago
  A simple google search for, say, "string" confirms to me that what you say is not true. I program, so it shows me ... well not clothing. Things I would not want to sort through. So you should realize that even something as simple as search cannot work well without "using my information". And I very much want it to do that.
  - l0b0 8y ago
    If that were true, people would not be able to find anything useful on DuckDuckGo.com and similar sites. Tracking is definitely not a prerequisite for quality search.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=string&t=h_&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=string&t=h_&ia=web https://www.google.com/search?q=string https://www.google.com/search?q=string Judge for yourself whether context matters. I suppose the results will differ from person to person, but I feel comfortable saying that while Duckduckgo isn't a lost cause, it contains a lot of bullshit to filter through. Example: > STRING: functional protein association networks > STRING is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure: it is one of > ELIXIR's Core Data Resources. Learn more > ... I mean ... really ? I suppose it must be a string, but, and maybe this is just me, I'm not looking for genetic manipulation tips or databases when I search for "string".

bordercases 8y ago

This is the probably the most erudite take I've seen on HN on the data collection issue, especially the comment on being over-reductionist. On one hand: not hard to do. On the other: I'm grateful that you did it. How can I get in touch, I'd love to talk to you more about this stuff.

ex3xu 8y ago
I added an email in my profile if there's something you wanted to discuss further.

whatshisface 8y ago

>So I hate logical positivism. From logical positivism we get the philosophical foundation of modern tracking and advertising, that every data point obtained about a subject is necessarily meaningful and actionable, and that which cannot be measured does not exist. That's a straw-man version of logical positivism. If you're able to talk about a failure of the measurement system, you've just measured the failure (by your senses, presumably). So, the positivists would say that it existed.

voidhorse 8y ago

You should check out the Frankfurt school if you haven’t, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, et al. They were fierce critics of the very sort of reductive and restrictive societal tendencies you’re arguing against here. Positivism is indeed poisonous, a beneficial poison in some ways, but poison nonetheless. Unfortunately, while some things have improved, a lot of the problems such thinkers diagnosed and fought against in the 40s-60s have gotten more severe—the technical edifice determines the lives of the human beings more than ever, and the possibility of alternatives that would increase freedom and not reduce human experience to subtle manipulation and organization by algorithmic and prescribed modes of behavior seems more and more distant.

ex3xu 8y ago
Thanks, I appreciate the recommendation.
cutler 8y ago
When I studied economics in the 1980s here in the UK I was dismayed to discover how much positivism implicitly dominated the economics curriculum. At A-level it was even more blatant with Lipsey's "Positive Economics" serving as a textbook for the whole course. Only the study of sociology enabled me to put this perspective in perspective. Lipsey's work presented the theories of supply and demand and Adam Smith's "invisible hand" as some kind of law of nature, the kind of gold sought by Comte and Durkheim. It was only the study of Marx's dialectical materialism which really opened my eyes about how positivism as taught in the economics curriculum was used to justify the capitalist system.