4 ms·

These companies are saying they are committed to safeguarding user data by spending $X dollars on a privacy project. In reality this is just companies policing

These companies are saying they are committed to safeguarding user data by spending $X dollars on a privacy project. In reality this is just companies policing themselves. They can always circumvent this in the future and just claim there is a bug with the privacy code. Without any form of legislation or regulatory body from the government there are literally no consequences. Getting grilled on capitol hill is just optics, looks good for the camera. Congress would literally need to spin out something like the SEC but for online privacy, but I dont see that happening.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
I don't know how to untangle it. It's obviously possible- BAE Systems Inc. (an American defense contractor) is owned by BAE Systems plc. (a British company). It's doable when you keep everything separate, only hire US citizens, add lots of locked doors, and put people in jail if they leak. I can't picture this working with data that's not considered classified. I'm wondering if it's not about the data at all. It's about who gets to control the information space. They don't even have to delete information critical of China, just weigh it down so it's essentially never seen.
- qqtt 4y ago
  The thing about politics is that it is the art of compromise. I think it makes sense for policies to discuss the foreign influence angle separately from the domestic influence angle. Further, it makes sense to sub-divide the foreign influence angle along certain dimensions, such as, generally friendly allies (like the British) versus adversarial powers (like China). Dividing problems these ways makes the conversations easier to happen, and from a political perspective, legislation tends to happen with a scalpel rather than a knife. People always seem to want to say "if X is a problem, why don't we talk about Y instead" - in this case, if data sharing is a problem, why don't we talk about the bigger problem? The issue when it comes to politics is that the system is almost by design resistant to big sweeping changes. There is a lot of value in continuing to have conversations about privacy. About domestic privacy. About foreign privacy. And all the sub-divisions possible along those lines. The perfect is the enemy of the good, especially in politics. Instead of seeing certain targeted privacy legislation (like potentially against TikTok) as bad, see it as part of a larger conversation and movement towards tougher privacy legislation. As public sentiment turns more and more towards privacy, we can continue to evolve other dimensions of the problem space - including domestic.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 4y ago
    After watching some of the congressional hearings yesterday and reading some of the news coverage, I can't wrap my head around how anyone can take this seriously anymore - it feels like I am living in a simulation, or a movie of some sort like The Truman Show. I think what has enabled this must be something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#As_metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#As_metaphor The boiling frog story is generally offered as a metaphor cautioning people to be aware of even gradual change lest they suffer eventual undesirable consequences. It may be invoked in support of a slippery slope argument as a caution against creeping normality. It is also used in business to reinforce that change needs to be gradual to be accepted.[6] The term "boiling frog syndrome" is a metaphor used to describe the failure to act against a problematic situation which will increase in severity until reaching catastrophic proportions.[7] It thereby encapsulates the barely noticeable impact of slow environmental degradation that has been described by Daniel Pauly as shifting baselines.[8] The story has been retold many times and used to illustrate widely varying viewpoints: in 1960 about warning against those who are sympathetic towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War;[9] in 1980 about the impending collapse of civilization anticipated by survivalists;[10] in the 1990s about inaction in response to climate change and staying in abusive relationships.[11][12] It has also been used by libertarians to warn about the slow erosion of civil liberties.[6] In the 1996 novel The Story of B, environmentalist author Daniel Quinn spends a chapter on the metaphor of the boiling frog, using it to describe human history, population growth and food surplus.[13] Pierce Brosnan's character Harry Dalton mentioned it in the 1997 disaster movie Dante's Peak in reference to the accumulating warning signs of the volcano's reawakening.[14] Al Gore used a version of the story in a New York Times op-ed,[15] in his presentations and the 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth to describe ignorance about global warming. In the movie version the frog is rescued before it is harmed.[16] This use of the story was referenced by writer/director Jon Cooksey in the title of his 2010 comedic documentary How to Boil a Frog.[17] Law professor and legal commentator Eugene Volokh commented in 2003 that regardless of the behavior of real frogs, the boiling frog story is useful as a metaphor, comparing it to the metaphor of an ostrich with its head in the sand.[6] Economics Nobel laureate and New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman used the story as a metaphor in a July 2009 column, while pointing out that real frogs behave differently.[18] Journalist James Fallows has been advocating since 2006 for people to stop retelling the story, describing it as a "stupid canard" and a "myth".[19][20] After Krugman's column appeared, however, he declared "peace on the boiled frog front" and said that using the story is acceptable if the writer points out that it is not literally true.[21]
- vlan0 4y ago
  I feel it's 100% about control. TikTok was eating their ad lunch. Growth potential for a creator feels much higher TikTok. The writing on the wall for me was when Meta, just two weeks ago, paused their creator payout for the TikTok competitor, reels. I also recall Zuck lobbying hard against TikTok for a while. Unsure if causation is there. But god damn that timing is sweet, eh?

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

I don't know how to untangle it. It's obviously possible- BAE Systems Inc. (an American defense contractor) is owned by BAE Systems plc. (a British company). It's doable when you keep everything separate, only hire US citizens, add lots of locked doors, and put people in jail if they leak. I can't picture this working with data that's not considered classified. I'm wondering if it's not about the data at all. It's about who gets to control the information space. They don't even have to delete information critical of China, just weigh it down so it's essentially never seen.

qqtt 4y ago
The thing about politics is that it is the art of compromise. I think it makes sense for policies to discuss the foreign influence angle separately from the domestic influence angle. Further, it makes sense to sub-divide the foreign influence angle along certain dimensions, such as, generally friendly allies (like the British) versus adversarial powers (like China). Dividing problems these ways makes the conversations easier to happen, and from a political perspective, legislation tends to happen with a scalpel rather than a knife. People always seem to want to say "if X is a problem, why don't we talk about Y instead" - in this case, if data sharing is a problem, why don't we talk about the bigger problem? The issue when it comes to politics is that the system is almost by design resistant to big sweeping changes. There is a lot of value in continuing to have conversations about privacy. About domestic privacy. About foreign privacy. And all the sub-divisions possible along those lines. The perfect is the enemy of the good, especially in politics. Instead of seeing certain targeted privacy legislation (like potentially against TikTok) as bad, see it as part of a larger conversation and movement towards tougher privacy legislation. As public sentiment turns more and more towards privacy, we can continue to evolve other dimensions of the problem space - including domestic.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 4y ago
  After watching some of the congressional hearings yesterday and reading some of the news coverage, I can't wrap my head around how anyone can take this seriously anymore - it feels like I am living in a simulation, or a movie of some sort like The Truman Show. I think what has enabled this must be something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#As_metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#As_metaphor The boiling frog story is generally offered as a metaphor cautioning people to be aware of even gradual change lest they suffer eventual undesirable consequences. It may be invoked in support of a slippery slope argument as a caution against creeping normality. It is also used in business to reinforce that change needs to be gradual to be accepted.[6] The term "boiling frog syndrome" is a metaphor used to describe the failure to act against a problematic situation which will increase in severity until reaching catastrophic proportions.[7] It thereby encapsulates the barely noticeable impact of slow environmental degradation that has been described by Daniel Pauly as shifting baselines.[8] The story has been retold many times and used to illustrate widely varying viewpoints: in 1960 about warning against those who are sympathetic towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War;[9] in 1980 about the impending collapse of civilization anticipated by survivalists;[10] in the 1990s about inaction in response to climate change and staying in abusive relationships.[11][12] It has also been used by libertarians to warn about the slow erosion of civil liberties.[6] In the 1996 novel The Story of B, environmentalist author Daniel Quinn spends a chapter on the metaphor of the boiling frog, using it to describe human history, population growth and food surplus.[13] Pierce Brosnan's character Harry Dalton mentioned it in the 1997 disaster movie Dante's Peak in reference to the accumulating warning signs of the volcano's reawakening.[14] Al Gore used a version of the story in a New York Times op-ed,[15] in his presentations and the 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth to describe ignorance about global warming. In the movie version the frog is rescued before it is harmed.[16] This use of the story was referenced by writer/director Jon Cooksey in the title of his 2010 comedic documentary How to Boil a Frog.[17] Law professor and legal commentator Eugene Volokh commented in 2003 that regardless of the behavior of real frogs, the boiling frog story is useful as a metaphor, comparing it to the metaphor of an ostrich with its head in the sand.[6] Economics Nobel laureate and New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman used the story as a metaphor in a July 2009 column, while pointing out that real frogs behave differently.[18] Journalist James Fallows has been advocating since 2006 for people to stop retelling the story, describing it as a "stupid canard" and a "myth".[19][20] After Krugman's column appeared, however, he declared "peace on the boiled frog front" and said that using the story is acceptable if the writer points out that it is not literally true.[21]
vlan0 4y ago
I feel it's 100% about control. TikTok was eating their ad lunch. Growth potential for a creator feels much higher TikTok. The writing on the wall for me was when Meta, just two weeks ago, paused their creator payout for the TikTok competitor, reels. I also recall Zuck lobbying hard against TikTok for a while. Unsure if causation is there. But god damn that timing is sweet, eh?