5 ms·

This is how we collectively got here: "This product doesn't work for me, I want something that does." We collectively asked for more product/service diversity,

This is how we collectively got here: "This product doesn't work for me, I want something that does." We collectively asked for more product/service diversity, more on-demand personalization and lower prices and we got it. We need to accept that the attention/surveillance economy is a natural outcome of high volume personalized markets. I did my undergraduate thesis on "Nash equilibria to predict consumer decision making under uncertainty" under Dr. Bruce Lister WELL before machine learning was even a core field of Computer Science. People, individuals, you and me, demand increasing determinism from other stochastic humans so that we can better predict and manage our relationships with them. A corporation has the same instinct, so they are doing the reasonable thing and collecting data in order to predict the next state in the Markov Decision Process that is you. Every major technology (and some non-technology) corporation either has built or is building a similar system to optimize you for their system. People have chosen by a HUGE MARGIN to join these systems because the non-hidden benefits outweigh the hidden risks. For the people that recognize the externalities some are pushing back (like these lawyers), but most people don't even know this is happening and honestly don't care because you get benefits from it. The only thing shocking about this is that Larry said the quiet part out loud

brutusborn 4y ago
I love the part where he said "This is scaring the lawyers. They're shaking their heads and covering their eyes" Makes you wonder how it got past the PR team.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  Unlike most public corporations, Larry is Dictator for Life so I don't think he has to ask anyone for permission to do anything.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  Makes you wonder how it got past the PR team. Because in most companies the PR team is near the bottom of the list of influence. Only slightly above coders. Certainly well below bean counters, salesfolk, and anyone with a TLA.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
How can the customer demand anything with respect to surveillance if it's not clear that it's happening? Just because a certain advertising mechanism is more effective than others doesn't mean that consumers are "demanding" that advertising mechanism, especially if the data collection part of it is obfuscated from the consumer.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  I don't claim that people are demanding advertising I am claiming the people demand free/cheap products that fit their exact demands to be immediately delivered to them The way that companies are solving "free or cheap" is by having someone else pay for the service on your behalf. There are only a few mechanisms for this that are "win-win" theoretically and advertising is the one that is the most popular. In order for advertising to be useful it needs to be targeted and attributable and it has to be fungible across advertisers. Therefore if you want to be able to create an ad-market to keep your product free/cheap then you need to offer the highest granularity predictions for your advertising dollar - hence why we have extremely granular ad systems.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
What about the data being collected has relevance to "product/service diversity" "on demand personalization" and lower prices? Especially "lower prices"? This data doesn't help lower prices, and prices haven't lowered. Corporate profits are through the roof while wages for all but the top 10-20% have flatlined or gone down when adjusted for inflation/cost of living. Savings and home ownership rates are the lowest in half a century. Etc etc.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  I think there's two things here 1. It absolutely helped "lower" prices because you never pay anything for the services that are built around ad-networks from the start, specifically social media. Do you think 1.39 billion people would pay $8 a month to use tik-tok (12BN rev/1.39B users)? No chance. The entire conceit of the consumer venture landscape since 2012 is: "How do you build a community on the back of VC money which forms the data source for your ad-network?" 2. There are certainly companies now that get the benefit from the data without "passing the savings on to consumers" but they are saving money in their costs.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    This seems less like people are demanding it, and more like people are being roofied.
331c8c71 4y ago
The models are as good as their underlying assumptions. Economics is definitely guilty of pretending fancy (for a layman) mathematical models "prove" things and disregarding the messiness of the real life. You've shown it yourself by saying "the Markov Decision Process which is you". I've done both financial econ and biology/genomics and I by far prefer the latter as a field. It is not to say that biology research doesn't have flaws but at least everyone understands the mathematical models are only models.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  The thing is, the models are actually pretty predictive at this point and are only improving. Like scary predictive There is no "getting worse" for the mathematics of prediction. In fact we have people in this thread saying to actually behave randomly in order to fool the systems. So, you know, we actually figured out how to improve iteratively and it's increasing in speed of improvement of prediction
  - 331c8c71 4y ago
    I don't dispute that. However the fact that predictive models work does not prove that people have choice and conciously choose to forego privacy. Look at apple/android there are huge scale effects/entry barriers at play so it's very hard for a more privacy-oriented competitor to emerge. Another thing is that people certainly don't understand how much data they provide and to what extent they are profiled.
    - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
      I don't think I'm being clear with my point It is possible to not be involved in the ad-economy, millions of people do it everyday. I would guess that most of these millions are old, illiterate, or are very poor, but you can do it without being any of those things. This population of people are not on the internet, they don't use credit cards, they don't have a cell phone. They work for cash, live in the same city they were born in etc.. You and I are actively choosing not to live like that, when in fact it is a completely possible, reasonable way to live and by the way we have been living like that for basically all but the last few decades. Everyone has a choice.
vesinisa 4y ago
Your comment makes little sense to me on many levels, but I strongly object to your assertion that "people have chosen by a HUGE MARGIN to join these systems". Oracle can not have possibly amassed consent from 5 billion individuals to mine data on them. People have certainly not opted-in for this kind of surveillance in exchange for "product diversity" or "lower prices." These objectionable consumer surveillance databases are being amassed and maintained regardless of whether they actually benefit the people in them or not.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  Oracle can not have possibly amassed consent from 5 billion individuals to mine data on them I would actually claim that not only did they consent, they did so in a legally binding way through the terms of service (that they didn't read). I'm as guilty as everyone else here, but the fact is there are options to keep yourself out of these systems if you want to - nobody is forcing you to use a credit card or be on the internet. Does it mean you will miss out on things that make life easier, faster, healthier, cheaper etc..? YES it does! That is entirely my point though. We are trading convenience and consumption for privacy willingly.
  - perlgeek 4y ago
    > I would actually claim that not only did they consent, they did so in a legally binding way through the terms of service (that they didn't read). Those 5 billion people don't all come from the same jurisdiction. Under GDPR, no consent for trading your data can come through an implicit, coerced action like consenting to terms of services. Under German law, clauses of terms of services are invalid if they aren't what a reasonable consumer would expect. > I'm as guilty as everyone else here, but the fact is there are options to keep yourself out of these systems if you want to - nobody is forcing you to use a credit card or be on the internet. I'd argue that having Internet access is quickly approaching the status of a human right (or should be), and buying things only is also getting increasingly common. Thing is, there doesn't have to be this amount of data collection just to browse the Internet and buy things only. I'm also not sure if lots of companies having dossiers on me is actually improving my experience anywhere. It seems likely they'll just use it sell me crap that I don't really want or need, simply by them being very persuasive and me having limited will power.
imchillyb 4y ago
> "We need to accept that the attention/surveillance economy is a natural outcome of high volume personalized markets." -@AndrewKemendo Hell NO we don't. YOU can accept the shitty surveillance. YOU can accept the personalized ads. Fuck off with that: We need to accept.... What a load of pablum. We're not babes here mate, and you're not our trusted advisor.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  Great then do it! You can get out right now if you want. Yet here you are arguing with me on the internet and providing more data for the ad network.
monksy 4y ago
The problem is that this is not a clear and present trade off that people can consent to. When choosing an object on collecting data, lets go with a fairly noxious and bad example BMW, you can't have a clear understanding about how you accelerate, your speed, pictures from your car, etc are valuable. At the time of purchase you are coerced into a market where things are unequally priced out, and even if it's told to you that you must accept that you give out your data. It doesn't make it clear about how far that goes, how it's stored, who it's sold to and correlated with etc. "The user has to accept this" is a very authoritarian thing for you to say and to blame everyone here for.
bvrlt 4y ago
> We collectively asked for more product/service diversity, more on-demand personalization and lower prices and we got it. We didn’t ask for it. Corporations made it desirable.

brutusborn 4y ago

I love the part where he said "This is scaring the lawyers. They're shaking their heads and covering their eyes" Makes you wonder how it got past the PR team.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
Unlike most public corporations, Larry is Dictator for Life so I don't think he has to ask anyone for permission to do anything.
reaperducer 4y ago
Makes you wonder how it got past the PR team. Because in most companies the PR team is near the bottom of the list of influence. Only slightly above coders. Certainly well below bean counters, salesfolk, and anyone with a TLA.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

How can the customer demand anything with respect to surveillance if it's not clear that it's happening? Just because a certain advertising mechanism is more effective than others doesn't mean that consumers are "demanding" that advertising mechanism, especially if the data collection part of it is obfuscated from the consumer.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
I don't claim that people are demanding advertising I am claiming the people demand free/cheap products that fit their exact demands to be immediately delivered to them The way that companies are solving "free or cheap" is by having someone else pay for the service on your behalf. There are only a few mechanisms for this that are "win-win" theoretically and advertising is the one that is the most popular. In order for advertising to be useful it needs to be targeted and attributable and it has to be fungible across advertisers. Therefore if you want to be able to create an ad-market to keep your product free/cheap then you need to offer the highest granularity predictions for your advertising dollar - hence why we have extremely granular ad systems.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

What about the data being collected has relevance to "product/service diversity" "on demand personalization" and lower prices? Especially "lower prices"? This data doesn't help lower prices, and prices haven't lowered. Corporate profits are through the roof while wages for all but the top 10-20% have flatlined or gone down when adjusted for inflation/cost of living. Savings and home ownership rates are the lowest in half a century. Etc etc.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
I think there's two things here 1. It absolutely helped "lower" prices because you never pay anything for the services that are built around ad-networks from the start, specifically social media. Do you think 1.39 billion people would pay $8 a month to use tik-tok (12BN rev/1.39B users)? No chance. The entire conceit of the consumer venture landscape since 2012 is: "How do you build a community on the back of VC money which forms the data source for your ad-network?" 2. There are certainly companies now that get the benefit from the data without "passing the savings on to consumers" but they are saving money in their costs.
- peteradio 4y ago
  This seems less like people are demanding it, and more like people are being roofied.

331c8c71 4y ago

The models are as good as their underlying assumptions. Economics is definitely guilty of pretending fancy (for a layman) mathematical models "prove" things and disregarding the messiness of the real life. You've shown it yourself by saying "the Markov Decision Process which is you". I've done both financial econ and biology/genomics and I by far prefer the latter as a field. It is not to say that biology research doesn't have flaws but at least everyone understands the mathematical models are only models.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
The thing is, the models are actually pretty predictive at this point and are only improving. Like scary predictive There is no "getting worse" for the mathematics of prediction. In fact we have people in this thread saying to actually behave randomly in order to fool the systems. So, you know, we actually figured out how to improve iteratively and it's increasing in speed of improvement of prediction
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  I don't dispute that. However the fact that predictive models work does not prove that people have choice and conciously choose to forego privacy. Look at apple/android there are huge scale effects/entry barriers at play so it's very hard for a more privacy-oriented competitor to emerge. Another thing is that people certainly don't understand how much data they provide and to what extent they are profiled.
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    I don't think I'm being clear with my point It is possible to not be involved in the ad-economy, millions of people do it everyday. I would guess that most of these millions are old, illiterate, or are very poor, but you can do it without being any of those things. This population of people are not on the internet, they don't use credit cards, they don't have a cell phone. They work for cash, live in the same city they were born in etc.. You and I are actively choosing not to live like that, when in fact it is a completely possible, reasonable way to live and by the way we have been living like that for basically all but the last few decades. Everyone has a choice.

vesinisa 4y ago

Your comment makes little sense to me on many levels, but I strongly object to your assertion that "people have chosen by a HUGE MARGIN to join these systems". Oracle can not have possibly amassed consent from 5 billion individuals to mine data on them. People have certainly not opted-in for this kind of surveillance in exchange for "product diversity" or "lower prices." These objectionable consumer surveillance databases are being amassed and maintained regardless of whether they actually benefit the people in them or not.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
Oracle can not have possibly amassed consent from 5 billion individuals to mine data on them I would actually claim that not only did they consent, they did so in a legally binding way through the terms of service (that they didn't read). I'm as guilty as everyone else here, but the fact is there are options to keep yourself out of these systems if you want to - nobody is forcing you to use a credit card or be on the internet. Does it mean you will miss out on things that make life easier, faster, healthier, cheaper etc..? YES it does! That is entirely my point though. We are trading convenience and consumption for privacy willingly.
- perlgeek 4y ago
  > I would actually claim that not only did they consent, they did so in a legally binding way through the terms of service (that they didn't read). Those 5 billion people don't all come from the same jurisdiction. Under GDPR, no consent for trading your data can come through an implicit, coerced action like consenting to terms of services. Under German law, clauses of terms of services are invalid if they aren't what a reasonable consumer would expect. > I'm as guilty as everyone else here, but the fact is there are options to keep yourself out of these systems if you want to - nobody is forcing you to use a credit card or be on the internet. I'd argue that having Internet access is quickly approaching the status of a human right (or should be), and buying things only is also getting increasingly common. Thing is, there doesn't have to be this amount of data collection just to browse the Internet and buy things only. I'm also not sure if lots of companies having dossiers on me is actually improving my experience anywhere. It seems likely they'll just use it sell me crap that I don't really want or need, simply by them being very persuasive and me having limited will power.

imchillyb 4y ago

> "We need to accept that the attention/surveillance economy is a natural outcome of high volume personalized markets." -@AndrewKemendo Hell NO we don't. YOU can accept the shitty surveillance. YOU can accept the personalized ads. Fuck off with that: We need to accept.... What a load of pablum. We're not babes here mate, and you're not our trusted advisor.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
Great then do it! You can get out right now if you want. Yet here you are arguing with me on the internet and providing more data for the ad network.

monksy 4y ago

The problem is that this is not a clear and present trade off that people can consent to. When choosing an object on collecting data, lets go with a fairly noxious and bad example BMW, you can't have a clear understanding about how you accelerate, your speed, pictures from your car, etc are valuable. At the time of purchase you are coerced into a market where things are unequally priced out, and even if it's told to you that you must accept that you give out your data. It doesn't make it clear about how far that goes, how it's stored, who it's sold to and correlated with etc. "The user has to accept this" is a very authoritarian thing for you to say and to blame everyone here for.

bvrlt 4y ago

> We collectively asked for more product/service diversity, more on-demand personalization and lower prices and we got it. We didn’t ask for it. Corporations made it desirable.