5 ms·

Is it really that hard to understand? What's the concrete harm so far? I've been using Google for a couple decades, and I can't really articulate a specific wa

Is it really that hard to understand? What's the concrete harm so far? I've been using Google for a couple decades, and I can't really articulate a specific way that I've been harmed. Yes, I realize that there's the potential for harm from a leak or something like that, but it's hardly surprising that the abstract notion of possible harm isn't super compelling to the average user when they're currently getting useful services for "free".

clairity 8y ago
you're rationalizing, i.e., looking the other way to avoid cognitive dissonance. but part of why we have such big brains is to anticipate the future, not simply accept events as they occur. what might the future you say? should we ignore that gas leak in the kitchen because it hasn't killed anyone yet? it's important to expose this kind of mis-rationalization, especially when tiny individual harms accumulate otherwise silently to become population-level dangers (e.g., measles).
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  This word, I don't think it means what you think it means. > should we ignore that gas leak in the kitchen because it hasn't killed anyone yet? No, but it's hard to see how using personal data to sell ads is going to cause a harm anywhere near as bad as a person dying.
  - clairity 8y ago
    > "...using personal data to sell ads..." again with the misdirection. look the other way if you like, but you're letting google choose the information you access and believe (even with ads). if you don't understand the power therein, maybe you should study more of your namesake.
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
      It's not misdirection, nor is it looking the other way; I simply don't have a problem with it. You seem to have a bit of trouble with language there. There's no current concrete harm, and the potential for serious harm just looks unlikely to occur.
  - 50656E6973 8y ago
    >it's hard to see how using personal data to sell ads is going to cause a harm anywhere near as bad as a person dying No need for imagination, simply read history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
    - krapp 8y ago
      To be fair, none of that involved selling ads.
      - 50656E6973 8y ago
        It involved the mass collection of personal information (what Google does in order to sell ads), which was then weaponized and used for purposes other than originally implied
        TulliusCicero 8y ago
        You could say the same thing about the US census, and yet hardly anybody seems to object to it, despite the government having interned a whole race of people in its history.
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
      That's a fair point, but it falls flat with me personally the same way arguments about gun control and the potential to use guns in revolutions against autocratic regimes fall flat with me: it just seems incredibly unlikely in this day and age, at least in developed countries. Like, the US once rounded up Japanese people and put them in camps. Using your same reasoning, one could argue that the government collecting any data on race/ethnicity anywhere -- like, say, on the census -- is a slippery slope to interning racial minorities again. And yet, almost nobody really cares in practice, because almost nobody thinks there's a realistic chance of that happening again. Governments have also, at times, discriminated against people for their sexuality, or gender, so should the government never be allowed to gather any information on those attributes?
Liquix 8y ago
The 'concrete harm' part comes into play when a corporation or nation-state weaponizes this data in order to sell you a product, influence your thoughts on a political matter, or otherwise manipulate you. If you're of the opinion that this is not problematic on a fabric-of-society level, could you please explain why?

clairity 8y ago

you're rationalizing, i.e., looking the other way to avoid cognitive dissonance. but part of why we have such big brains is to anticipate the future, not simply accept events as they occur. what might the future you say? should we ignore that gas leak in the kitchen because it hasn't killed anyone yet? it's important to expose this kind of mis-rationalization, especially when tiny individual harms accumulate otherwise silently to become population-level dangers (e.g., measles).

TulliusCicero 8y ago
This word, I don't think it means what you think it means. > should we ignore that gas leak in the kitchen because it hasn't killed anyone yet? No, but it's hard to see how using personal data to sell ads is going to cause a harm anywhere near as bad as a person dying.
- clairity 8y ago
  > "...using personal data to sell ads..." again with the misdirection. look the other way if you like, but you're letting google choose the information you access and believe (even with ads). if you don't understand the power therein, maybe you should study more of your namesake.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    It's not misdirection, nor is it looking the other way; I simply don't have a problem with it. You seem to have a bit of trouble with language there. There's no current concrete harm, and the potential for serious harm just looks unlikely to occur.
- 50656E6973 8y ago
  >it's hard to see how using personal data to sell ads is going to cause a harm anywhere near as bad as a person dying No need for imagination, simply read history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
  - krapp 8y ago
    To be fair, none of that involved selling ads.
    - 50656E6973 8y ago
      It involved the mass collection of personal information (what Google does in order to sell ads), which was then weaponized and used for purposes other than originally implied
      - TulliusCicero 8y ago
        You could say the same thing about the US census, and yet hardly anybody seems to object to it, despite the government having interned a whole race of people in its history.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    That's a fair point, but it falls flat with me personally the same way arguments about gun control and the potential to use guns in revolutions against autocratic regimes fall flat with me: it just seems incredibly unlikely in this day and age, at least in developed countries. Like, the US once rounded up Japanese people and put them in camps. Using your same reasoning, one could argue that the government collecting any data on race/ethnicity anywhere -- like, say, on the census -- is a slippery slope to interning racial minorities again. And yet, almost nobody really cares in practice, because almost nobody thinks there's a realistic chance of that happening again. Governments have also, at times, discriminated against people for their sexuality, or gender, so should the government never be allowed to gather any information on those attributes?

Liquix 8y ago

The 'concrete harm' part comes into play when a corporation or nation-state weaponizes this data in order to sell you a product, influence your thoughts on a political matter, or otherwise manipulate you. If you're of the opinion that this is not problematic on a fabric-of-society level, could you please explain why?