3 ms·

Unethical, maybe. Though, how ethical should one be in war when the enemy is a tyrant? The signals to rebellion start slow: you pester and annoy the enemy to l

by kodah 5y ago

Unethical, maybe. Though, how ethical should one be in war when the enemy is a tyrant? The signals to rebellion start slow: you pester and annoy the enemy to let them know they have tread on the wrong turf. You try to inform them, then you try to concede points for shared ground. Once the enemy has decided that your advancements and ground meeting are to their advantage, and continue to gain ground is what we identify as skirmishes and battle starts. You ambush, you destroy logistical routes, you make it difficult for the enemy perceive that this ground is worthwhile. At what point do you fire the cannons? At what point does the normally docile rest of society join you to arm your rebellious battlements? I think you are witnessing the populous arming their cannons. You can object, but you can't object that the enemy is closer than ever.

slg 5y ago
This just seems hyperbolic. They aren't a tyrant because you can just leave their platform. You want to use their platform without any of the consequences that come with that usage. You are walking into someone else's house, making demands, and breaking stuff when you don't get your way.
- kodah 5y ago
  Every rebellion looks hyperbolic from the outside, I would say. Reddit is indexed by an outside party, not Reddit itself. Twitter is the same way. The most infamous of Facebook's data exfiltration was Cambridge Analytica, which again is an outside indexer. The accurate comparison, imo, is "we all came to this land to communicate together, but you use the platforms features to stalk people." Advertising is more of a concession of privacy, which I can tolerate if it's iterated on. The option you lay in front of people is "leave". So, someone of my convictions must leave once a platform becomes so popular that it attracts professional stalkers? Why is that the only acceptable option to you?
  - slg 5y ago
    Honestly this explanation makes it sound worse to me. Your objection doesn't appear to be with these social media companies. It seems to be with the very nature of public communication. You want the benefit of publicly communication without facing any repercussions for what you said in public. And in order to help ensure you don't face repercussions, you are polluting the shared public spaces for everyone else and forcing these social media companies to clean up after you. Every public platform can be externally monitored and archived. If you don't accept that, don't participate in public platforms.
    - kodah 5y ago
      Not really. I've participated in public communication since I was a kid. IRC, public forums, etc... Advertisers and platform monetization are definitely part of the problem, don't get me wrong. I just signalled that I'm willing to iterate on that problem. When my mother gets a call on her cellphone by a recruiter looking for me when we share zero relationships online it signals a pretty desperate issue in how data is being used, correlated, and exploited. The public side of these APIs is just an exacerbation of those issues, because they're the same APIs an advertiser uses. You painting me as someone who is trying to avoid repercussions is interesting. Do you normally assume the worst about people when you debate them?
      - slg 5y ago
        >You painting me as someone who is trying to avoid repercussions is interesting. Do you normally assume the worst about people when you debate them? I think you are assuming a specific connotation on "repercussions". I'm not talking about "repercussions" in the coded "cancel culture" way. I am saying that you want the positives of speaking in public without the unwanted negatives. That is the literal definition of avoiding repercussions. If your public speaking establishes you as some type of expert, people are naturally going to start reaching out to talk to you. That is the nature of public discourse. What that recruiter did is wildly unethical, but it is a natural repercussion of publicly showing traits of the person the recruiter is looking to hire. There are downsides to being a public citizen. You don't get a free pass to act unethically in order to avoid those downsides.
aabbcc1241 5y ago
How about you just host for your own content? Then you can delete or edit them as you wish.

by kodah 5y ago

slg 5y ago

This just seems hyperbolic. They aren't a tyrant because you can just leave their platform. You want to use their platform without any of the consequences that come with that usage. You are walking into someone else's house, making demands, and breaking stuff when you don't get your way.

kodah 5y ago
Every rebellion looks hyperbolic from the outside, I would say. Reddit is indexed by an outside party, not Reddit itself. Twitter is the same way. The most infamous of Facebook's data exfiltration was Cambridge Analytica, which again is an outside indexer. The accurate comparison, imo, is "we all came to this land to communicate together, but you use the platforms features to stalk people." Advertising is more of a concession of privacy, which I can tolerate if it's iterated on. The option you lay in front of people is "leave". So, someone of my convictions must leave once a platform becomes so popular that it attracts professional stalkers? Why is that the only acceptable option to you?
- slg 5y ago
  Honestly this explanation makes it sound worse to me. Your objection doesn't appear to be with these social media companies. It seems to be with the very nature of public communication. You want the benefit of publicly communication without facing any repercussions for what you said in public. And in order to help ensure you don't face repercussions, you are polluting the shared public spaces for everyone else and forcing these social media companies to clean up after you. Every public platform can be externally monitored and archived. If you don't accept that, don't participate in public platforms.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Not really. I've participated in public communication since I was a kid. IRC, public forums, etc... Advertisers and platform monetization are definitely part of the problem, don't get me wrong. I just signalled that I'm willing to iterate on that problem. When my mother gets a call on her cellphone by a recruiter looking for me when we share zero relationships online it signals a pretty desperate issue in how data is being used, correlated, and exploited. The public side of these APIs is just an exacerbation of those issues, because they're the same APIs an advertiser uses. You painting me as someone who is trying to avoid repercussions is interesting. Do you normally assume the worst about people when you debate them?
    - slg 5y ago
      >You painting me as someone who is trying to avoid repercussions is interesting. Do you normally assume the worst about people when you debate them? I think you are assuming a specific connotation on "repercussions". I'm not talking about "repercussions" in the coded "cancel culture" way. I am saying that you want the positives of speaking in public without the unwanted negatives. That is the literal definition of avoiding repercussions. If your public speaking establishes you as some type of expert, people are naturally going to start reaching out to talk to you. That is the nature of public discourse. What that recruiter did is wildly unethical, but it is a natural repercussion of publicly showing traits of the person the recruiter is looking to hire. There are downsides to being a public citizen. You don't get a free pass to act unethically in order to avoid those downsides.

aabbcc1241 5y ago

How about you just host for your own content? Then you can delete or edit them as you wish.