3 ms·
I think this is a mischaracterization of what "the response" was except maybe from laypeople. The idea that real people's input was analyzed as part of the syst
by shawnz 7y ago
I think this is a mischaracterization of what "the response" was except maybe from laypeople. The idea that real people's input was analyzed as part of the system (for Siri, Amazon etc) was always well documented and I never saw anything in the official documentation or the media response to these technologies that suggested otherwise.
In my opinion it's only now which they see that they can capitalize on this misunderstanding that tech journalists are portraying the situation like nobody knew and this was some kind of big secret. Why didn't they make such a big fuss in the first place, when these technologies came out?
Maybe it was wrong to not highlight those issues right from the start but I think it's also wrong to act like nobody knew. It was well understood, but tech journalists at the time wanted a positive story instead of a negative one. Now the negative angle is more profitable and the tune has changed.
- AstralStorm 7y agoWhy no fuss initially? Here's a few options to explore: - People and by consequence journalists want new thing and incumbent to succeed (potentially underdog and novelty effect) - Some journalists were well paid to tout it - Lobbyists and think tanks were well paid to quell any potential political and legal concerns - The matter was indeed not obvious to either users or journalists - Experts in privacy were being discounted and undermined - Legal landscape has changed (see GDPR)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]