5 ms·

Well that's not a rhetorical question really. I think based on recent past experience with Google people have actual concerns about whether it will be for socia

Well that's not a rhetorical question really. I think based on recent past experience with Google people have actual concerns about whether it will be for social good in the long term. For me this is similar to what's happened in the GMO space. Potentially great technology that gets more of a bad name than it deserves because the players involved have done some really disturbing stuff before they ever got involved in GMO. Getting back to tech, would it be overly negative to have a little healthy paranoia about Facebook contributing to privacy research?

mrep 8y ago
I'm out of the loop. What has the food/GMO industry done that is disturbing?
- fixermark 8y ago
  They managed to revolutionize agriculture and stave off the starvation apocalypse that the people of the '50s and '60s were predicting. ... oh, I misread your question; I thought you asked "How did the food / GMO industry save the world?"
  - rum3 8y ago
    And now everybody has cancer and the food is tasteless.
- tchaffee 8y ago
  The industry as a whole? I'm not sure I could make that claim. And I'm somewhat well informed having close family that work in agriculture. But take one major player as an example, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer): - Major producer of DDT. Evidence that DDT was causing widespread environmental damage was clear by the 1960s but it took the US government until the 1970s to finally ban it. Then the industry sued the US government to try to overturn the ban. Who tries to continue selling a product that has caused widespread environmental damage? - Producer of Agent Orange. Another "perfectly safe" chemical. Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems as a result of Agent Orange contamination. I'm not sure how many US veterans were affected. - Major producer of PCBs. Which are later banned due to being highly environmentally toxic, cause cancer in animals and probably humans too. - Producer of bovine growth hormone, another "perfectly safe chemical". rBST has not been allowed since at least 2000 on the market in Canada, or since 1990 the European Union. Other countries have banned it. I don't think the studies on how it might affect humans are conclusive but there are concerns. For sure the studies on how it can negatively affect cows are more solid. - They have been convicted of bribery in order to get government approval. At what point do you stop trusting? And again, I don't mean the science and GMOs themselves. I mean the company who is making claims that GMOs are perfectly safe for both humans and the environment. Scientists are not so bold. Read the studies to see disclaimers and healthy doubt in those studies. Usually specifically spelled out. Disclaimers and doubts that are never mentioned by Monsanto when they publicly speak about their products. If they started being far more careful with their "perfectly safe" rhetoric, I might change my mind about them. So far, that hasn't happened. I can't say if on the whole Monsanto has been somewhat responsible and well-behaved as a company. But I can say that based on just the list above, I would be very hesitant to trust any claims they make about the safety of any agricultural product, especially those involving chemicals. I'm sure that someone can / will come in with a defense of Monsanto or arguments about each point above. The devil surely is in the details. But who has time to sort through hundreds of studies and court cases? Fair or not, we will continue using heuristics to decide who we trust. Maybe Facebook does in fact treat my data ethically and each time they get caught with privacy concerns or taken to court it was "just an honest mistake". Are you willing to spend tens or hundreds of hours of your free time trying to figure that out? Or will you use a heuristic and just be cautious with trusting what Facebook will do with your data?

mrep 8y ago

I'm out of the loop. What has the food/GMO industry done that is disturbing?

fixermark 8y ago
They managed to revolutionize agriculture and stave off the starvation apocalypse that the people of the '50s and '60s were predicting. ... oh, I misread your question; I thought you asked "How did the food / GMO industry save the world?"
- rum3 8y ago
  And now everybody has cancer and the food is tasteless.
tchaffee 8y ago
The industry as a whole? I'm not sure I could make that claim. And I'm somewhat well informed having close family that work in agriculture. But take one major player as an example, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer): - Major producer of DDT. Evidence that DDT was causing widespread environmental damage was clear by the 1960s but it took the US government until the 1970s to finally ban it. Then the industry sued the US government to try to overturn the ban. Who tries to continue selling a product that has caused widespread environmental damage? - Producer of Agent Orange. Another "perfectly safe" chemical. Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems as a result of Agent Orange contamination. I'm not sure how many US veterans were affected. - Major producer of PCBs. Which are later banned due to being highly environmentally toxic, cause cancer in animals and probably humans too. - Producer of bovine growth hormone, another "perfectly safe chemical". rBST has not been allowed since at least 2000 on the market in Canada, or since 1990 the European Union. Other countries have banned it. I don't think the studies on how it might affect humans are conclusive but there are concerns. For sure the studies on how it can negatively affect cows are more solid. - They have been convicted of bribery in order to get government approval. At what point do you stop trusting? And again, I don't mean the science and GMOs themselves. I mean the company who is making claims that GMOs are perfectly safe for both humans and the environment. Scientists are not so bold. Read the studies to see disclaimers and healthy doubt in those studies. Usually specifically spelled out. Disclaimers and doubts that are never mentioned by Monsanto when they publicly speak about their products. If they started being far more careful with their "perfectly safe" rhetoric, I might change my mind about them. So far, that hasn't happened. I can't say if on the whole Monsanto has been somewhat responsible and well-behaved as a company. But I can say that based on just the list above, I would be very hesitant to trust any claims they make about the safety of any agricultural product, especially those involving chemicals. I'm sure that someone can / will come in with a defense of Monsanto or arguments about each point above. The devil surely is in the details. But who has time to sort through hundreds of studies and court cases? Fair or not, we will continue using heuristics to decide who we trust. Maybe Facebook does in fact treat my data ethically and each time they get caught with privacy concerns or taken to court it was "just an honest mistake". Are you willing to spend tens or hundreds of hours of your free time trying to figure that out? Or will you use a heuristic and just be cautious with trusting what Facebook will do with your data?