3 ms·

Personally, I think the problem isn't in the supply but in the demand. We've structured modern society in a way that forces demand for this information: - Com

Personally, I think the problem isn't in the supply but in the demand. We've structured modern society in a way that forces demand for this information: - Companies must sell products to users - The more saturated the market for a good, the more incentive there is to game these sales (instill false desire, target vulnerable audiences, find and target users who might be convinced to buy your product through any means) - This kind of "gaming" requires knowing more and more information about your potential customers, because the companies that engage most in those practices are the most successful. ----------- The problem is that eventually this starts to look like a nightmare Oroboros situation - We are all both employees of companies doing this targeting and the targeted users. The snake is literally eating its own tail. Users want privacy, Employees want data. But Users ARE Employees, and Employees ARE users. In my opinion, the only question is whether the snake chokes to death on its tail, or eventually spits it out.

dredmorbius 7y ago
This is a situation where the traditional economic focus on distinct "supply" and "demand" functions and processes is limiting, and a cybernetics/systems approach strikes me as more useful. Or, to put this back into economic terms for a moment, the issue is supply, as the demand function you've described is induced demand, by way of the Jevons paradox: the information and capabilities would not exist if the costs of data collection, aggregation, processing, and utilisation were higher. Since they are not higher, the data environment exists, and the demand is induced. Back at uni in one of my econ courses, the instructor who'd returned to teaching from administration for one final term before retirement, made the following observation about computer systems planning from his experience. Roughly: Every time a new computer system (think enterprise / academic database applications, 1980s era) is designed, you can go through the most careful capacity planning and modeling procdess, but once you actually deploy the system, you find that there are a whole set of new uses which emerge because people wanted to do them previously but were unable to. And as a consequence, the usage levels are higher than anticipated. It was a throwaway comment in class one day, but is among the handful of most memorable moments from my college education. The point is that if it's not possible to do a thing then it isn't done. If it is possible, and cost-effective, then there's virtually no way (absent draconian regulation fo some form: legal, social, moral, political) to prevent it from occurring. And once a process is possible, if it provides some benefit, then it's not possible to not do it when competing with those who do because you simply cannot operate competitively. Which is where we are now with data, and surveillance capitalism / surveillance state. From the systems view, what you have is a positive feedback loop, where increased efficiency => decreased costs => increase capability => increased benfit => further research => increased efficiency. There are further elements to this. As to the competitive market element, once production or provisioning of goods and services moves beyond strictly local markets, then the actor who can claim a larger share of the market has an advantage to doing so. Being able to do that requires mass production (or provisioning) capabilities, which themselves are a feedback loop (increased capital utilisation, improved processes, greater market share, greater market brand awareness, familiarity with concepts, UI/UX, tools, support and supplychain dynamics, etc.) which further increase benefit. (And that's excluding unfair business practices, though those also provide considerable advantage.) An immediate consequence is that the battle for mindshare becomes increasingly fierce, and with that a reliance on advertising -- simply having a good local name, foot traffic, and a shingle on a busy high street isn't enough. Hamilton Holt's 1909 monograph Commercialism and Journalism describes the impacts of this change over the previous half-century on the publishing trade, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It comes at what we now consider to be the beginning of the mass media age, but does an excellent job of laying out the dynamics of what's occurred since: https://www.worldcat.org/title/commercialism-and-journalism/oclc/639344712 https://www.worldcat.org/title/commercialism-and-journalism/... As to the emplyees vs. users dynamic, the error here is that employees are not ultimately the control agents. Managers and investors are, and they seek, increasingly, short-term direct profit with little concern to either overall social welfare or long-term impacts. So that's a very red herring and misleading analysis.
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  That's a very insightful and very depressing analysis.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    They don't call it "the dismal science" for nothing. The value of the analysis though is to recognise just what the power of apparent pricing is. And that if you want to change behaviours you've got to change that price. There are recognised ways of doing that. One is to impose mandatory floors or minima of behaviour / requirements. One is to price in externalised risks. That's what insurance, posting bonds, licensing and credentialing (in some regards), and the like can do. All move the potential costs of future events to the present. Strictly prohibiting certain types of transactions is frequently latched onto. That has certain benefits, but risks creating black markets, as with prohibition and the war on (some) drugs. Enforcement / control mechanisms all also become potential avenues for power co-option or manipulation. Taxing activities or wealth derived from them is another option. As is mandating open access in specific contexts -- e.g., "common carrier" status, "equal time" doctrines, "fairness doctrine", etc.
- horsawlarway 7y ago
  >As to the employees vs. users dynamic, the error here is that employees are not ultimately the control agents. Managers and investors are, and they seek, increasingly, short-term direct profit with little concern to either overall social welfare or long-term impacts. So that's a very red herring and misleading analysis. This is precisely why I used the snake eating its own tail as a metaphor here. I believe that it's reaching the point where the managers ARE actually employees stuck in the same trap - or at least a large percentage of them are. (I'm with you that there is a class of investor that is still immune, you can picture this as the head of the snake) I've been in management, it's fairly clear that user data allows you opportunities and a competitive edge. I am also very, very aware that my data is included in that pool. I don't like it, but when asked to make a decision that keeps my product profitable, I'm going to try to use any user data I can. If I don't, I'm replaceable. If I'm not replaced, I don't have a company to manage in 5 years, because it wasn't competitive. Add on top that market consolidation is at (frankly scary) record levels, and I'd argue that the number of humans who actually have any real agency and control over how an organization behaves are dwindling precipitously. So already I've been swallowed.
LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
There is an article from Professer Sut Jhally, Ph.D. where he writes about Advertising at the Edge of the Apocalypse. [1] http://www.sutjhally.com/articles/advertisingattheed/ http://www.sutjhally.com/articles/advertisingattheed/ All this surveillance stuff is just another tool for advertisers with utter disregard for the consequences. He can say that. Yet when you as a commoner even dare to, you are being stared at as if you were a mad cow, or worse COMMIE! Why is that?

dredmorbius 7y ago

This is a situation where the traditional economic focus on distinct "supply" and "demand" functions and processes is limiting, and a cybernetics/systems approach strikes me as more useful. Or, to put this back into economic terms for a moment, the issue is supply, as the demand function you've described is induced demand, by way of the Jevons paradox: the information and capabilities would not exist if the costs of data collection, aggregation, processing, and utilisation were higher. Since they are not higher, the data environment exists, and the demand is induced. Back at uni in one of my econ courses, the instructor who'd returned to teaching from administration for one final term before retirement, made the following observation about computer systems planning from his experience. Roughly: Every time a new computer system (think enterprise / academic database applications, 1980s era) is designed, you can go through the most careful capacity planning and modeling procdess, but once you actually deploy the system, you find that there are a whole set of new uses which emerge because people wanted to do them previously but were unable to. And as a consequence, the usage levels are higher than anticipated. It was a throwaway comment in class one day, but is among the handful of most memorable moments from my college education. The point is that if it's not possible to do a thing then it isn't done. If it is possible, and cost-effective, then there's virtually no way (absent draconian regulation fo some form: legal, social, moral, political) to prevent it from occurring. And once a process is possible, if it provides some benefit, then it's not possible to not do it when competing with those who do because you simply cannot operate competitively. Which is where we are now with data, and surveillance capitalism / surveillance state. From the systems view, what you have is a positive feedback loop, where increased efficiency => decreased costs => increase capability => increased benfit => further research => increased efficiency. There are further elements to this. As to the competitive market element, once production or provisioning of goods and services moves beyond strictly local markets, then the actor who can claim a larger share of the market has an advantage to doing so. Being able to do that requires mass production (or provisioning) capabilities, which themselves are a feedback loop (increased capital utilisation, improved processes, greater market share, greater market brand awareness, familiarity with concepts, UI/UX, tools, support and supplychain dynamics, etc.) which further increase benefit. (And that's excluding unfair business practices, though those also provide considerable advantage.) An immediate consequence is that the battle for mindshare becomes increasingly fierce, and with that a reliance on advertising -- simply having a good local name, foot traffic, and a shingle on a busy high street isn't enough. Hamilton Holt's 1909 monograph Commercialism and Journalism describes the impacts of this change over the previous half-century on the publishing trade, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It comes at what we now consider to be the beginning of the mass media age, but does an excellent job of laying out the dynamics of what's occurred since: https://www.worldcat.org/title/commercialism-and-journalism/oclc/639344712 https://www.worldcat.org/title/commercialism-and-journalism/... As to the emplyees vs. users dynamic, the error here is that employees are not ultimately the control agents. Managers and investors are, and they seek, increasingly, short-term direct profit with little concern to either overall social welfare or long-term impacts. So that's a very red herring and misleading analysis.

woodandsteel 7y ago
That's a very insightful and very depressing analysis.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  They don't call it "the dismal science" for nothing. The value of the analysis though is to recognise just what the power of apparent pricing is. And that if you want to change behaviours you've got to change that price. There are recognised ways of doing that. One is to impose mandatory floors or minima of behaviour / requirements. One is to price in externalised risks. That's what insurance, posting bonds, licensing and credentialing (in some regards), and the like can do. All move the potential costs of future events to the present. Strictly prohibiting certain types of transactions is frequently latched onto. That has certain benefits, but risks creating black markets, as with prohibition and the war on (some) drugs. Enforcement / control mechanisms all also become potential avenues for power co-option or manipulation. Taxing activities or wealth derived from them is another option. As is mandating open access in specific contexts -- e.g., "common carrier" status, "equal time" doctrines, "fairness doctrine", etc.
horsawlarway 7y ago
>As to the employees vs. users dynamic, the error here is that employees are not ultimately the control agents. Managers and investors are, and they seek, increasingly, short-term direct profit with little concern to either overall social welfare or long-term impacts. So that's a very red herring and misleading analysis. This is precisely why I used the snake eating its own tail as a metaphor here. I believe that it's reaching the point where the managers ARE actually employees stuck in the same trap - or at least a large percentage of them are. (I'm with you that there is a class of investor that is still immune, you can picture this as the head of the snake) I've been in management, it's fairly clear that user data allows you opportunities and a competitive edge. I am also very, very aware that my data is included in that pool. I don't like it, but when asked to make a decision that keeps my product profitable, I'm going to try to use any user data I can. If I don't, I'm replaceable. If I'm not replaced, I don't have a company to manage in 5 years, because it wasn't competitive. Add on top that market consolidation is at (frankly scary) record levels, and I'd argue that the number of humans who actually have any real agency and control over how an organization behaves are dwindling precipitously. So already I've been swallowed.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago

There is an article from Professer Sut Jhally, Ph.D. where he writes about Advertising at the Edge of the Apocalypse. [1] http://www.sutjhally.com/articles/advertisingattheed/ http://www.sutjhally.com/articles/advertisingattheed/ All this surveillance stuff is just another tool for advertisers with utter disregard for the consequences. He can say that. Yet when you as a commoner even dare to, you are being stared at as if you were a mad cow, or worse COMMIE! Why is that?