6 ms·

I'd say actual human slavery - which I can easily imagine from extensive historical records - is probably worse. Yeah, mysterious data centers logging everythi

I'd say actual human slavery - which I can easily imagine from extensive historical records - is probably worse. Yeah, mysterious data centers logging everything you do is scary, but have you ever been beaten bloody because you lacked the physical ability to pick the required cotton quota? Whoever wrote this title needs a serious dose of perspective. And to rewrite the title.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Batman8675309 8y ago
I would also argue torture being something worse. Hell, even online privacy inequality isn't the worst thing that comes to mind. Steal my browser history all you want if the alternative is to steal my identity and my money.
- jka 8y ago
  Not to be too morose / Black Mirror about it, but what would sociopaths in the wealthy 'protected class' described in the article do, with all their free time and resources and immunity from scrutiny? I'd suggest they'd push the 'predictable' to play out games (theater, tragedy, whatever) for their own entertainment - a form of unwitting slavery or perhaps torture in the case of real emotional pain caused to the unwitting participants. Definitely an 'out there' idea, but figured I'd mention it since it occurred to me. In a way it's an arc of the plot of Mr. Robot so far, so it's not a totally new idea.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    Why would it be an out there idea when analogous sorts of behavior is something that happens at all levels? You only need to look at the middle class to see the same thing quite visible in action. There are endless incidents of individuals treating e.g. homeless individuals as something less than human. Attacking them, having them engage in demeaning behavior for pittances, and so on. It's not like being of any class inherently stops one from acting out sadistic forms of "entertainment."
em-bee 8y ago
the big difference is that with slavery and related forms of inequality, the brutality is obvious. with privacy it isn't. slavery has no future because once discovered, it's easily stopped today, and it will be even more easy in the future. privacy violations on the other hand are much more difficult to discover and stop, if people are even aware of the problem. the real danger here is that your privacy is violated and you don't even know it.
- dnautics 8y ago
  Yes, and the correct adjective for that is insidious, not brutal.
  - em-bee 8y ago
    good point, but there is no reason it can't be both. insidious brutality exists.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      Insidious brutality exists, but privacy inequality is not an example of it is the point that people are making.
rjf72 8y ago
While I do not necessarily agree with the article, I think it provides a reasonably solid argument explaining why your reaction is not necessarily as obvious as it might seem. The big deal about privacy is that it's not immediately obvious why having your privacy invaded is a particularly awful thing, which means that many people are not especially upset about it. The article gives the example of being able to analyze the mental health of a person through little more than a recording of their voice. Other recent progress includes being able to determine a person's sexuality from their face. As time progresses we're likely going to be able to determine more and more about people from entirely passive means. This opens up the door to immense exploitation without people ever realizing they're being exploited. Imagine we create a world with 100 people that are identical in every way except for one. 5 of those people will receive tremendous amounts of information, updated in real time, about the other 95 people. It's not hard to see that those 5 will eventually be able to obtain complete power over the 95, if they should seek it. The worst part is that it will seem all, more or less, organic - even though the conclusion is practically predetermined. In slavery the master-slave relation, and its inequity, was extremely visible and something clearly less than comforting to the senses. Aristotle mentions abolitionists in writings that are at least some 2,300 years old. Slavery persisted not for lack of opposition but because it was seen as a necessary evil by many. As Aristotle prophetically put it, "If the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." But the inequity of privacy is mostly invisible. Demands for privacy are still even seen as somewhat bizarrely eccentric. It's improbable that the 'masses' will begin to understand how valuable their own privacy is any time in the foreseeable future. And so they will pay a tremendous price for this, all without ever realizing it or being able to change the trajectory that they're on.
badrabbit 8y ago
One can argue deprivarion of privacy for the powerless masses can lead to a society so hopelessly controlled and manipulated by the elite class that return of slavery with an even worse level of brutality suddenly becomes a practical possibility. Slavery as you portrayed it went away but people who possess the desire to see it back in place are still alive and well. I don't mean lack of democracy but lack of ability for the masses to have their voice heard or will respected
- cinquemb 8y ago
  For me, I think this can be summed to: asymmetric use of $x against $y can lead to $z. My question, not for you but in general, what tool (or what functions of such tool will be nessisarcy) for lowering chances of $z (if indeed $z is agreed to be undesirable by many in all forms and not just for virtue signaling) as applied to privacy and its exploitation for large gains skewed in favor for the few?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  What you're talking about is not slavery. It might be loosely termed "institutional oppression". Basically, an oligarchic dictatorship. Money and information are used to coerce your conformity and obedience. BUT, a person can legally opt out and just live with nothing. Slavery is when brute physical force is used to coerce conformity and obedience. A slave can NEVER legally opt out. and the slave ALWAYS lives with nothing, because he IS property. I'd imagine most humans would choose to live with being forced to behave in society to get money, and then going home, rather than to have to live with cradle to grave slavery. To equate them is just, kind of, being a little sensationalist.
  - badrabbit 8y ago
    No,i meant slavery as in 1800s whiplashing and lynching slavery. Institutional oppression is what you think I meant,what i meant was a dystopian future where privacy erosion has lead to a world where your every move and intention is analyzed for conformity by the elite class. You can optin and opt out,elect leaders or overhtrow dictators because you can organize in groups,think and plan without your adversary knowing your every move. If someone controls what information you consume and every reaction you have to a given scenario or information then they can control you to the point where even the brutal form of slavery can be thought of as acceptable.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Batman8675309 8y ago

I would also argue torture being something worse. Hell, even online privacy inequality isn't the worst thing that comes to mind. Steal my browser history all you want if the alternative is to steal my identity and my money.

jka 8y ago
Not to be too morose / Black Mirror about it, but what would sociopaths in the wealthy 'protected class' described in the article do, with all their free time and resources and immunity from scrutiny? I'd suggest they'd push the 'predictable' to play out games (theater, tragedy, whatever) for their own entertainment - a form of unwitting slavery or perhaps torture in the case of real emotional pain caused to the unwitting participants. Definitely an 'out there' idea, but figured I'd mention it since it occurred to me. In a way it's an arc of the plot of Mr. Robot so far, so it's not a totally new idea.
- rjf72 8y ago
  Why would it be an out there idea when analogous sorts of behavior is something that happens at all levels? You only need to look at the middle class to see the same thing quite visible in action. There are endless incidents of individuals treating e.g. homeless individuals as something less than human. Attacking them, having them engage in demeaning behavior for pittances, and so on. It's not like being of any class inherently stops one from acting out sadistic forms of "entertainment."

em-bee 8y ago

the big difference is that with slavery and related forms of inequality, the brutality is obvious. with privacy it isn't. slavery has no future because once discovered, it's easily stopped today, and it will be even more easy in the future. privacy violations on the other hand are much more difficult to discover and stop, if people are even aware of the problem. the real danger here is that your privacy is violated and you don't even know it.

dnautics 8y ago
Yes, and the correct adjective for that is insidious, not brutal.
- em-bee 8y ago
  good point, but there is no reason it can't be both. insidious brutality exists.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Insidious brutality exists, but privacy inequality is not an example of it is the point that people are making.

rjf72 8y ago

While I do not necessarily agree with the article, I think it provides a reasonably solid argument explaining why your reaction is not necessarily as obvious as it might seem. The big deal about privacy is that it's not immediately obvious why having your privacy invaded is a particularly awful thing, which means that many people are not especially upset about it. The article gives the example of being able to analyze the mental health of a person through little more than a recording of their voice. Other recent progress includes being able to determine a person's sexuality from their face. As time progresses we're likely going to be able to determine more and more about people from entirely passive means. This opens up the door to immense exploitation without people ever realizing they're being exploited. Imagine we create a world with 100 people that are identical in every way except for one. 5 of those people will receive tremendous amounts of information, updated in real time, about the other 95 people. It's not hard to see that those 5 will eventually be able to obtain complete power over the 95, if they should seek it. The worst part is that it will seem all, more or less, organic - even though the conclusion is practically predetermined. In slavery the master-slave relation, and its inequity, was extremely visible and something clearly less than comforting to the senses. Aristotle mentions abolitionists in writings that are at least some 2,300 years old. Slavery persisted not for lack of opposition but because it was seen as a necessary evil by many. As Aristotle prophetically put it, "If the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." But the inequity of privacy is mostly invisible. Demands for privacy are still even seen as somewhat bizarrely eccentric. It's improbable that the 'masses' will begin to understand how valuable their own privacy is any time in the foreseeable future. And so they will pay a tremendous price for this, all without ever realizing it or being able to change the trajectory that they're on.

badrabbit 8y ago

One can argue deprivarion of privacy for the powerless masses can lead to a society so hopelessly controlled and manipulated by the elite class that return of slavery with an even worse level of brutality suddenly becomes a practical possibility. Slavery as you portrayed it went away but people who possess the desire to see it back in place are still alive and well. I don't mean lack of democracy but lack of ability for the masses to have their voice heard or will respected

cinquemb 8y ago
For me, I think this can be summed to: asymmetric use of $x against $y can lead to $z. My question, not for you but in general, what tool (or what functions of such tool will be nessisarcy) for lowering chances of $z (if indeed $z is agreed to be undesirable by many in all forms and not just for virtue signaling) as applied to privacy and its exploitation for large gains skewed in favor for the few?
bilbo0s 8y ago
What you're talking about is not slavery. It might be loosely termed "institutional oppression". Basically, an oligarchic dictatorship. Money and information are used to coerce your conformity and obedience. BUT, a person can legally opt out and just live with nothing. Slavery is when brute physical force is used to coerce conformity and obedience. A slave can NEVER legally opt out. and the slave ALWAYS lives with nothing, because he IS property. I'd imagine most humans would choose to live with being forced to behave in society to get money, and then going home, rather than to have to live with cradle to grave slavery. To equate them is just, kind of, being a little sensationalist.
- badrabbit 8y ago
  No,i meant slavery as in 1800s whiplashing and lynching slavery. Institutional oppression is what you think I meant,what i meant was a dystopian future where privacy erosion has lead to a world where your every move and intention is analyzed for conformity by the elite class. You can optin and opt out,elect leaders or overhtrow dictators because you can organize in groups,think and plan without your adversary knowing your every move. If someone controls what information you consume and every reaction you have to a given scenario or information then they can control you to the point where even the brutal form of slavery can be thought of as acceptable.