5 ms·
There needs to be some corollary of the "extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence" phrase for ordinary claims. I feel like I can safely assume things
by variaga 6y ago
There needs to be some corollary of the "extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence" phrase for ordinary claims.
I feel like I can safely assume things like "a for-profit corporation will monetize resources available to it" without any specific evidence about the particular corporation or asset.
- fastball 6y agoDoesn't seem like a corollary. The corollary would require ordinary evidence, and you're saying you're happy to not have any.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThere's plenty of ordinary evidence that corporations monetize data.
- gowld 6y agoThere's plenty of ordinary evidence that corporations decline to monetize some data. Example: https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465 https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/143465 "Advertisers can’t use personal hardship categories to target ads to users or to promote advertisers’ products or services. See below for specific examples of what we don't allow." "Examples: Treatments for chronic health conditions like diabetes or arthritis, treatments for sexually transmitted diseases, counseling services for mental health issues like depression or anxiety, medical devices for sleep apnea like CPAP machines, over-the-counter medications for yeast infections, information about how to support your autistic child"
- fastball 6y agoWith the extraordinary claims, the extraordinary evidence usually needs to directly pertain to the claims. It is not "extraordinary claims require other similar extraordinary things to have happened in the past". That is not evidence for your claim.
- ceejayoz 6y agoExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yes. The point is that "corporations will monetize data" isn't an extraordinary claim.
- fastball 6y agoNo, that is an ordinary claim, and one that has plenty of ordinary evidence to back it up. This company will monetize this data is also an ordinary claim (from history), but similarly needs evidence. "Companies have monetized similar in the past" is not evidence they'll do it in this case. If you're a gambler, you should absolutely use that fact to inform your betting, but it's not evidence.
- ceejayoz 6y agoI'm not a fan of "regulators must allow actual harm before intervening" here.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- variaga 6y agoNo, I have plenty of ordinary evidence in the form of my observations of the behavior of every other for-profit corporation across all of history. Like if you claimed "pine sap is sticky" I don't feel compelled to challenge you and demand to touch it myself before I believe you. I've encountered plenty of pine sap in my life, and it was all sticky. I _have_ evidence that pine sap is sticky generally, so I don't demand _extra_ evidence that a _specific_ portion of sap is sticky.
- fastball 6y agoYes, and water is wet. But water and pine sap are to the best of our knowledge fairly homogenous, while companies are definitely not that. Complex things are, well, complex, and absolutely not all the same.
- harry8 6y agoThey're not homogenous. The companies that don't make money go broke and cease to be. No sign of that from Google. They're buying the data to monetize it. If they were doing something unexpected like destroying it for the greater good they'd announce it. The extraordinary thing here is if they bought the data to /not/ monetize it. That requires the evidence. Not the overwhelmingly expected thing. They are mutually exclusive alternatives after all. Go with the overwhelmingly likely one until you've got a solid reason not to. We don't here.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]