4 ms·

What would be convincing proof according to your standards? The complete implosion of democracy? The visible persecution of some minority? Tracing everything ba

What would be convincing proof according to your standards? The complete implosion of democracy? The visible persecution of some minority? Tracing everything back via a proper legalistic paper trail to the actions of a single corporate entity? That's not how the road to hell is usually paved. Who redefined "Terms and norms"? Who declared that privacy is dead? The problem really is that people have normalized a practice (surveillance, compilation of human behavioral profiles, classification, trading of such profiles, material impact on people's life based on such data and their algorithmic interpretation) that is historically the hallmark of oppression. This is not normal, not if we live in democratic, well functioning societies as we are led to believe. The cambridge-analytica episode is just the tip of the iceberg of what will happen if politicians and markets keep legitimizing this business model. Why place this bomb under society? Is there any service being offered that is not reproducible otherwise? Its just some freaking databases and servers and messages after all. What the world is waiting for is for the gargantuan mea-culpa of silicon valley and the amoral capital that financed this. This is a litmus test of whether there is anything left of the "Western" project, because of oppressive and unaccountable regimes there are plenty.

quotemstr 5y ago
Yes, FB or anyone else should be punished only after violating a law written down for everyone to see in advance of the action that supposedly violated that law. The road to hell is built by ignoring the rule of law to go after whoever is "bad" in the moment. There's an ancient legal principle called "nulla poena sina legal", which means "no punishment without a law". It's the foundation of all justice. Here's a classic quote from A Man for all Seasons that helps explain: Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law? More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  I dont't disagree with the rule of law (to put it mildly) but not sure this is what is at stake here. Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis?
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    > Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis? No, of course not. But you have to articulate, in detail, what your new prohibitions are. You can't just declare people or organizations bad and punish them on the basis of their being bad without explaining what, specifically, is the conduct you're prohibiting going forward.
    - streamofdigits 5y ago
      There are people who have done precisely that (to quite excruciating detail I might add :-) with the informed legal and civics background that I could only dream of: Check [0] and her bible. It is calm, meticulous deconstruction of what is happening, why, and why it is wrong. Forming a consensus (imho this can easily span the traditional political spectrum as it affects literally everybody - its not frequently you get to see the two extremes agree on something) and moving towards a new framework that will sketch "what good looks like" is entirely possible and would come not a moment too early. The stakes are really high. This is a struggle for democracy, but also for the shape of the future economy. There are many sectors: medical, insurance, finance, education that are looking with disbelief at what is going on. if the political signal is that the Faustian pact of surveillance capitalism is irreversible the ensuing race to the bottom will be the end... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff
      - quotemstr 5y ago

quotemstr 5y ago

Yes, FB or anyone else should be punished only after violating a law written down for everyone to see in advance of the action that supposedly violated that law. The road to hell is built by ignoring the rule of law to go after whoever is "bad" in the moment. There's an ancient legal principle called "nulla poena sina legal", which means "no punishment without a law". It's the foundation of all justice. Here's a classic quote from A Man for all Seasons that helps explain: Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law? More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

streamofdigits 5y ago
I dont't disagree with the rule of law (to put it mildly) but not sure this is what is at stake here. Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis?
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis? No, of course not. But you have to articulate, in detail, what your new prohibitions are. You can't just declare people or organizations bad and punish them on the basis of their being bad without explaining what, specifically, is the conduct you're prohibiting going forward.
  - streamofdigits 5y ago
    There are people who have done precisely that (to quite excruciating detail I might add :-) with the informed legal and civics background that I could only dream of: Check [0] and her bible. It is calm, meticulous deconstruction of what is happening, why, and why it is wrong. Forming a consensus (imho this can easily span the traditional political spectrum as it affects literally everybody - its not frequently you get to see the two extremes agree on something) and moving towards a new framework that will sketch "what good looks like" is entirely possible and would come not a moment too early. The stakes are really high. This is a struggle for democracy, but also for the shape of the future economy. There are many sectors: medical, insurance, finance, education that are looking with disbelief at what is going on. if the political signal is that the Faustian pact of surveillance capitalism is irreversible the ensuing race to the bottom will be the end... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff
    - quotemstr 5y ago