5 ms·

I don't disagree with this, but this argument fails to acknowledge the responsibility of social media companies to communicate what information they gather abou

I don't disagree with this, but this argument fails to acknowledge the responsibility of social media companies to communicate what information they gather about you and how they choose to use it. On both fronts, they're still entirely too opaque. It might not be a fair comparison, but I feel like this argument is the equivalent to smoking for 40 years without realizing that it causes cancer because the hypothetical tobacco companies didn't have to disclose that information. When you go to the doctor and the doctor blames you for your failing health, is that fair for the doctor to do? You did something that was enjoyable and seemed novel without understanding the cost to your health. Informed consent in social media is still laughable in 2018, and we don't really discuss that aspect of the issue enough IMO.

NorthOf33rd 8y ago
Social media companies are incredibly clear about what information they gather and how they will use it: everything and however they want. Is anyone actually unaware of this? The individuals may not consider the consequences, but twitter has no responsibility to tell you that they'll use your pregnancy post to advertise to you, and what the ramifications of that might be. Advertising algorithms are amoral tools put into this world by amoral entities. The woman's situation is a use case with an ROI attached to it. It's a PBI for Twitter. Elsewhere in this thread there's a transgender individual. Their use case is another PBI. The transgender person's use case will be solved first because the transgender community represents more advertising dollars than a grieving mother.
- save_ferris 8y ago
  Technology professionals are well-aware of what information is gathered and how it's used, but I don't think the broad public understands at all. Terms and conditions are still bogged-down piles of text that nobody reads, and the leaders of the big tech firms still dodge many questions directed at them by members of congress, the media, and the public at large. > Advertising algorithms are amoral tools put into this world by amoral entities. Are you saying that social media companies aren't subject to moral and ethical scrutiny? I'm really confused by this statement.
- danaris 8y ago
  > Social media companies are incredibly clear about what information they gather and how they will use it: everything and however they want. OK, but...the thing is, that's not actually true, however much their less ethical executives might prefer it to be. They don't, for instance, collect data on what games I play on my iPhone, because that information is not available to them. But while I have enough technical knowledge to understand that they don't have access to that, a) not everyone does, b) while it's true on iPhones, I don't know if it's true on Android—and there may be different answers for "can Facebook track that on Android" and "can Google track that on Android", and c) there are probably things they can do that, despite my relatively good understanding of the subject, I'm either unclear on or at least suspect they can't do. Similarly, there are many things they don't do with it, because they can't, due either to technical or legal restrictions, or because it's just not profitable. But I'm much less clear on what these things are, and I would very much like to know. Of course, they don't want us to know either of these things. Right now, most people generally fall into one of two categories: those who, like you, have just thrown up their hands and said, "They collect everything, and there's nothing we can do about it!", and those who don't really know/understand much of anything about it. Being forced to be clear and open about what data they collect and how they use it would draw attention to it, and make it possible for people who don't want to live like digital doomsday preppers in bunkers to take some reasonable precautions to safeguard their data. It might also get (more) people to say, "Hey, the way you're doing that is wrong, and we should make laws to make that illegal."
  - NorthOf33rd 8y ago
    Should have said, "Everything they can that's potentially profitable," but overall I'm aiming for pith over nuance. I'm not throwing up my hands, I'm here saying: consider the things you're letting into your life and their motivations. There are plenty of things we can do about it. Not share every single detail about ourselves on social media being a good start. This isn't private data we're talking about with the authors post. It's data she made very public, by choice.
    - danaris 8y ago
      But I think that her post highlights some other obvious holes in what we know about what information these companies collect and what they do about it. Did they notice the posts she made and the behaviour she exhibited after she lost her baby? Did their algorithms capture it in any way, and they just aren't tuned to do anything about it because it's unprofitable? Or are their algorithms dumber and less all-consuming than we give them credit for? The whole point is we don't know, and we really, really should.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

NorthOf33rd 8y ago

Social media companies are incredibly clear about what information they gather and how they will use it: everything and however they want. Is anyone actually unaware of this? The individuals may not consider the consequences, but twitter has no responsibility to tell you that they'll use your pregnancy post to advertise to you, and what the ramifications of that might be. Advertising algorithms are amoral tools put into this world by amoral entities. The woman's situation is a use case with an ROI attached to it. It's a PBI for Twitter. Elsewhere in this thread there's a transgender individual. Their use case is another PBI. The transgender person's use case will be solved first because the transgender community represents more advertising dollars than a grieving mother.

save_ferris 8y ago
Technology professionals are well-aware of what information is gathered and how it's used, but I don't think the broad public understands at all. Terms and conditions are still bogged-down piles of text that nobody reads, and the leaders of the big tech firms still dodge many questions directed at them by members of congress, the media, and the public at large. > Advertising algorithms are amoral tools put into this world by amoral entities. Are you saying that social media companies aren't subject to moral and ethical scrutiny? I'm really confused by this statement.
danaris 8y ago
> Social media companies are incredibly clear about what information they gather and how they will use it: everything and however they want. OK, but...the thing is, that's not actually true, however much their less ethical executives might prefer it to be. They don't, for instance, collect data on what games I play on my iPhone, because that information is not available to them. But while I have enough technical knowledge to understand that they don't have access to that, a) not everyone does, b) while it's true on iPhones, I don't know if it's true on Android—and there may be different answers for "can Facebook track that on Android" and "can Google track that on Android", and c) there are probably things they can do that, despite my relatively good understanding of the subject, I'm either unclear on or at least suspect they can't do. Similarly, there are many things they don't do with it, because they can't, due either to technical or legal restrictions, or because it's just not profitable. But I'm much less clear on what these things are, and I would very much like to know. Of course, they don't want us to know either of these things. Right now, most people generally fall into one of two categories: those who, like you, have just thrown up their hands and said, "They collect everything, and there's nothing we can do about it!", and those who don't really know/understand much of anything about it. Being forced to be clear and open about what data they collect and how they use it would draw attention to it, and make it possible for people who don't want to live like digital doomsday preppers in bunkers to take some reasonable precautions to safeguard their data. It might also get (more) people to say, "Hey, the way you're doing that is wrong, and we should make laws to make that illegal."
- NorthOf33rd 8y ago
  Should have said, "Everything they can that's potentially profitable," but overall I'm aiming for pith over nuance. I'm not throwing up my hands, I'm here saying: consider the things you're letting into your life and their motivations. There are plenty of things we can do about it. Not share every single detail about ourselves on social media being a good start. This isn't private data we're talking about with the authors post. It's data she made very public, by choice.
  - danaris 8y ago
    But I think that her post highlights some other obvious holes in what we know about what information these companies collect and what they do about it. Did they notice the posts she made and the behaviour she exhibited after she lost her baby? Did their algorithms capture it in any way, and they just aren't tuned to do anything about it because it's unprofitable? Or are their algorithms dumber and less all-consuming than we give them credit for? The whole point is we don't know, and we really, really should.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]