3 ms·

It could be argued (pretty convincingly) that the collection of PSYCHOMETRIC data, (like what Cambridge Analytica did in 2011-2015; via innocent-seeming "person

It could be argued (pretty convincingly) that the collection of PSYCHOMETRIC data, (like what Cambridge Analytica did in 2011-2015; via innocent-seeming "personality quizzes" on social media - then the weaponization of that data by foreign intelligence services to target ads directly at people with certain personality types, in order to subvert the democratic election process on a massive scale, in order to affect a nation's foreign policy, and therefore the strategic balance of powers in the world - does, indeed represent "a real crisis". (the real horror here, is they only had to sample a small subset of social media users, then compare their profiles with everyone else via "likes" and whatnot to develop accurate personality profiles of users who had no fucking idea they were being profiled because they never took a personality test). I assume that data like that, unless refreshed, gets stale and useless fairly rapidly. But holy shit we're just sitting here, blind to the dangers of this data collection. Or it could be as mundane as Russia's CozyBear group hacking a Ukrainian app store to insert malware into popular messaging apps, and using that app installed on a Ukrainian soldier's phone to direct artillery fire. Maybe THAT'S "a real crisis"?

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Yes, absolutely. Because in the general case: computers are more dangerous than guns. You can literally do far more harm with data than with automatic weapons. Because that data gives you access to narrow-band propaganda. Instead of hope-for-the-best broad messaging you can target specific groups with content, signifiers, and emotional tone that is known to be effective for them, and encourage specific collective beliefs and behaviours. It's not even persuasion any more in the ad tech sense. When it's done by hostile troll farms or state actors with a covert political agenda it's literally psychological warfare. IMO the industry needs to take a long hard look at itself and start asking questions about whether this is really where it wants to go. Hacker culture has a benign, goofy, on-the-spectrum, somewhat arrogant but mostly harmless reputation. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. Data collection and social media systems are psychological weapons. They're absolutely hostile to rational informed choice and participative democracy. And given the temptation to abuse that power in various ways, we should be having more of a conversation about this than we have so far.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Yes, absolutely. Because in the general case: computers are more dangerous than guns. You can literally do far more harm with data than with automatic weapons. Because that data gives you access to narrow-band propaganda. Instead of hope-for-the-best broad messaging you can target specific groups with content, signifiers, and emotional tone that is known to be effective for them, and encourage specific collective beliefs and behaviours. It's not even persuasion any more in the ad tech sense. When it's done by hostile troll farms or state actors with a covert political agenda it's literally psychological warfare. IMO the industry needs to take a long hard look at itself and start asking questions about whether this is really where it wants to go. Hacker culture has a benign, goofy, on-the-spectrum, somewhat arrogant but mostly harmless reputation. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. Data collection and social media systems are psychological weapons. They're absolutely hostile to rational informed choice and participative democracy. And given the temptation to abuse that power in various ways, we should be having more of a conversation about this than we have so far.