4 ms·

The only part of your argument that's relevant is the part about selling personal information for profit. The rest is immaterial to the problem with unregulated

The only part of your argument that's relevant is the part about selling personal information for profit. The rest is immaterial to the problem with unregulated industry, and in fact incorrect when it comes to the end-result of things like "political polarization". Governments and private companies are more than happy to see the mass organization and demonstrations of the 20th century turn into yelling at auntie on Facebook. Social media is the /dev/null of critical thought; a pressure valve for grievances that can be quickly assuaged by faves. The polarization of views online just makes us more silent IRL, much to the delight of our employers.

dillonmckay 7y ago
“Social media is the /dev/null of critical thought” Beautiful.
warbird 7y ago
The article itself barely touches upon the titular "stake." NPR inserts "election interference" and Smith is quoted in reference to personal data acquisition as a potentially dangerous wealth transfer/concentration. Since election interference is widely reported and understood to have been an intel operation aimed at polarizing U.S. public opinion with legitimate and illegitimate information, I dont see how treebeard is irrelevant. Sidenote: It's still unclear, to me anyway, just how effective the influence was. In these crazy times, I should clarify that I'm not denying it occured.
- dmix 7y ago
  Even beyond how effective the election manipulation was or wasn't, no one is asking whether the vague 'regulations' (by the US gov?) will do anything useful at all. I suspect not but this all sounds reactionary "something must be done" where the utility of the something is always downplayed.
  - warbird 7y ago
    Agreed, of course. And, thanks for bringing my sidenote back onto topic (: The subject of the article is not too well-defined, which reflects our inability to come to terms with the associated Big Issues. So, yeah, it's difficult for me to imagine forward thinking regulation coming out of the current conversation--such as it is, in main editorial media and government. In my personal life, having a productive conversation about the current and future impacts of data (non)privacy is next to impossible due to the inherent complexity of integrating the subject with pre-existing ideological frameworks. I do not think I'm brighter than them, just happen to have a long-standing interest. Based on observation, politicians seem no better equipped.

dillonmckay 7y ago

“Social media is the /dev/null of critical thought” Beautiful.

warbird 7y ago

The article itself barely touches upon the titular "stake." NPR inserts "election interference" and Smith is quoted in reference to personal data acquisition as a potentially dangerous wealth transfer/concentration. Since election interference is widely reported and understood to have been an intel operation aimed at polarizing U.S. public opinion with legitimate and illegitimate information, I dont see how treebeard is irrelevant. Sidenote: It's still unclear, to me anyway, just how effective the influence was. In these crazy times, I should clarify that I'm not denying it occured.

dmix 7y ago
Even beyond how effective the election manipulation was or wasn't, no one is asking whether the vague 'regulations' (by the US gov?) will do anything useful at all. I suspect not but this all sounds reactionary "something must be done" where the utility of the something is always downplayed.
- warbird 7y ago
  Agreed, of course. And, thanks for bringing my sidenote back onto topic (: The subject of the article is not too well-defined, which reflects our inability to come to terms with the associated Big Issues. So, yeah, it's difficult for me to imagine forward thinking regulation coming out of the current conversation--such as it is, in main editorial media and government. In my personal life, having a productive conversation about the current and future impacts of data (non)privacy is next to impossible due to the inherent complexity of integrating the subject with pre-existing ideological frameworks. I do not think I'm brighter than them, just happen to have a long-standing interest. Based on observation, politicians seem no better equipped.