3 ms·

This has bean a long time coming. This is a stark reminder that you should consider who the future stewards of whatever you are building might be. We built a v

This has bean a long time coming. This is a stark reminder that you should consider who the future stewards of whatever you are building might be. We built a vast surveillance network under the guise of servings ads and making money, and lost track of how this power could be abused by an entity not aligned with our own values.

ianbutler 8mo ago
Don't lump me in that "we". I did no such thing. I know exactly how it could be abused and have spent 12 years intentionally not working for companies that perpetuate it.
- emodendroket 8mo ago
  We are all very impressed, I assure you.
  - ianbutler 8mo ago
    Going by the upvotes I have generally yes people do seem to think so. It's only weird folks like you and the other guy that seem to have a problem. It's exactly why I don't do more because I really don't want to be associated with people like you folks.
    - emodendroket 8mo ago
      Well one thing we can be sure of is your self regard.
      - ianbutler 8mo ago
        Yes because not assenting to the anon rando who makes a snide insulting comment is outside the bounds of normal well regulated self interest. I can't possibly eyeroll any harder at you.
        emodendroket 8mo ago
        I just don’t know what patting yourself on the back for your incorruptibility is really adding to the discussion.
        ianbutler 8mo ago
        Had you said this first instead of the snark I would have had a more reasonable initial reply just fyi. My intent wasn't to pat myself on the back it was to make OP aware people have not all just been going along with it using myself as an example, and then it turned into a nice little side thread with me and the OP talking about that conceptually. I can appreciate you disagree with how I chose to go about that though as objectively it was self centered.
- stephantul 8mo ago
  Well I guess I mean the pubic in general. I also don’t necessarily mean willfully creating technology that can be abused. For example, we all stood by when we let Twitter and other US-based social media become the main way politicians communicate with the public. This has, in my opinion, had disastrous consequences on how they communicate and actively blocks politicians from achieving consensus. This is to say that you don’t need to have actively worked on something.
  - ianbutler 8mo ago
    I think that expecting the public to reason through the myriad n-order effects that were going to happen from the whiplash of technology in the last 30 years is a little much. However, I think a lot of people in tech could and did see those consequences coming and were pretty vocal about it. So, I don't think we all did stand by, we exercised what limited power we had. I don't want to seem accusatory here and I don't mean it harshly, but maybe you just didn't see the folks who have talked about problems like this. We also as individuals [without billions] have fairly limited capacity to directly act against these things. I donate a fair bit to the EFF for instance and I've sent outreach to representatives multiple times over the years for specific bills and when its possible I vote against surveillance.
    - stephantul 8mo ago
      You are right, I do acknowledge their efforts but did not do so here, which I should have. I don't necessarily mean to berate the public, but rather the politicians, who saw that they could use social media/big tech for their own personal gain, and the media, who went along with the narrative that putting all our public communication into privately owned platforms was good for democracy. And maybe our own governments and institutions (speaking from a EU perspective) for dropping the ball in protecting us. I think Evgeny Morozov's 2010-ish writing was prophetic in this regard.
      - belorn 8mo ago
        Several years ago in Stockholm (2014) during a conference focus on the Internet, the Chief Technology Officer for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign held a talk on how they revolutionary the campaign process by using targeted advertisement campaign on social networks, mostly Facebook, and how effective the technique was to reach voters during fund raising and getting their voters to vote. In their view, this was the first major use of social media during an election. The talk is still available on Youtube for those interested. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3WS9bs3Aps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3WS9bs3Aps) There are also articles from 2011 where political commenters noted how the Obama campaign broke new ground using targeted Facebook advertisement and outreach, and how EU politicians could learn from it. The many smaller, but in total larger donations given to Obama was contrasted with Hillary Clinton who had larger individual donations but less in total, and the commenters attributed this to the use of Facebook and finding and meeting a younger audience on those online platforms. People thought that targeted advertisement was a good thing and politicians looked on the techniques from that election and saw the potential for power. It was mostly just those privacy advocates, free software advocates and security experts that expressed doubt and warned about the dangers.
- AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
  Good for you What are you doing to organize around that? Or is it just “I decided to leave so my hands are clean” self adoration?
  - hackable_sand 8mo ago
    Passive resistance is still resistance. It's the gateway to any sympathetic contingency.
    - AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
      Where’s the passive resistance? This user is still on twitter and actively promoting their handle there
      - ianbutler 8mo ago
        "We also as individuals [without billions] have fairly limited capacity to directly act against these things. I donate a fair bit to the EFF for instance and I've sent outreach to representatives multiple times over the years for specific bills and when its possible I vote against surveillance." - from a parallel thread I was commenting in. I'm totally fine stopping at minimizing my culpability. I sleep just fine at night and don't really jump at purity tests like you seem to want. I'm not other people's savior and I don't want to be. If you want to put your energy into that, I support you.
        AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
        Then don’t jump into a conversation as though you have some answer if all you’re doing is virtue signaling that you’re detached
        ianbutler 8mo ago
        > Don't lump me in that "we". I did no such thing. I know exactly how it could be abused and have spent 12 years intentionally not working for companies that perpetuate it. I don't think you know how to read because I certainly didn't do that. But also go fuck yourself. This is why no one cares about your causes btw because weird angry little dudes isn't a good look.
s5300 8mo ago
[dead]
IhateAI 8mo ago
It was always intended to be used that way, the programmatic advertising industry is a product of US Nat Sec.
fauchletenerum 8mo ago
From day one everyone who worked on these ad-tech surveillance systems knew they had the capability for abuse. They were built to come as close as possible to the legal limits of surveillance and in several notable cases crossed that line. This isn't a surprise to anyone
- tosapple 8mo ago
  The way I understand it, which may be dated: is that if it's automated or robotic it doesn't qualify as an "unreasonable search or seizure".
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    Or if it's a third party. The government is allowed to hire corporate contractors that don't obey the constitution.
    - tosapple 8mo ago
      [dead]
potamic 8mo ago
There was a narrative here earlier that I'd rather trust Google/Apple with my data than any other company or any government. The end result is the same in the end. When it comes to privacy, the only thing that works is zero trust.

ianbutler 8mo ago

Don't lump me in that "we". I did no such thing. I know exactly how it could be abused and have spent 12 years intentionally not working for companies that perpetuate it.

emodendroket 8mo ago
We are all very impressed, I assure you.
- ianbutler 8mo ago
  Going by the upvotes I have generally yes people do seem to think so. It's only weird folks like you and the other guy that seem to have a problem. It's exactly why I don't do more because I really don't want to be associated with people like you folks.
  - emodendroket 8mo ago
    Well one thing we can be sure of is your self regard.
    - ianbutler 8mo ago
      Yes because not assenting to the anon rando who makes a snide insulting comment is outside the bounds of normal well regulated self interest. I can't possibly eyeroll any harder at you.
      - emodendroket 8mo ago
        I just don’t know what patting yourself on the back for your incorruptibility is really adding to the discussion.
        ianbutler 8mo ago
        Had you said this first instead of the snark I would have had a more reasonable initial reply just fyi. My intent wasn't to pat myself on the back it was to make OP aware people have not all just been going along with it using myself as an example, and then it turned into a nice little side thread with me and the OP talking about that conceptually. I can appreciate you disagree with how I chose to go about that though as objectively it was self centered.
stephantul 8mo ago
Well I guess I mean the pubic in general. I also don’t necessarily mean willfully creating technology that can be abused. For example, we all stood by when we let Twitter and other US-based social media become the main way politicians communicate with the public. This has, in my opinion, had disastrous consequences on how they communicate and actively blocks politicians from achieving consensus. This is to say that you don’t need to have actively worked on something.
- ianbutler 8mo ago
  I think that expecting the public to reason through the myriad n-order effects that were going to happen from the whiplash of technology in the last 30 years is a little much. However, I think a lot of people in tech could and did see those consequences coming and were pretty vocal about it. So, I don't think we all did stand by, we exercised what limited power we had. I don't want to seem accusatory here and I don't mean it harshly, but maybe you just didn't see the folks who have talked about problems like this. We also as individuals [without billions] have fairly limited capacity to directly act against these things. I donate a fair bit to the EFF for instance and I've sent outreach to representatives multiple times over the years for specific bills and when its possible I vote against surveillance.
  - stephantul 8mo ago
    You are right, I do acknowledge their efforts but did not do so here, which I should have. I don't necessarily mean to berate the public, but rather the politicians, who saw that they could use social media/big tech for their own personal gain, and the media, who went along with the narrative that putting all our public communication into privately owned platforms was good for democracy. And maybe our own governments and institutions (speaking from a EU perspective) for dropping the ball in protecting us. I think Evgeny Morozov's 2010-ish writing was prophetic in this regard.
    - belorn 8mo ago
      Several years ago in Stockholm (2014) during a conference focus on the Internet, the Chief Technology Officer for Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign held a talk on how they revolutionary the campaign process by using targeted advertisement campaign on social networks, mostly Facebook, and how effective the technique was to reach voters during fund raising and getting their voters to vote. In their view, this was the first major use of social media during an election. The talk is still available on Youtube for those interested. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3WS9bs3Aps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3WS9bs3Aps) There are also articles from 2011 where political commenters noted how the Obama campaign broke new ground using targeted Facebook advertisement and outreach, and how EU politicians could learn from it. The many smaller, but in total larger donations given to Obama was contrasted with Hillary Clinton who had larger individual donations but less in total, and the commenters attributed this to the use of Facebook and finding and meeting a younger audience on those online platforms. People thought that targeted advertisement was a good thing and politicians looked on the techniques from that election and saw the potential for power. It was mostly just those privacy advocates, free software advocates and security experts that expressed doubt and warned about the dangers.
AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
Good for you What are you doing to organize around that? Or is it just “I decided to leave so my hands are clean” self adoration?
- hackable_sand 8mo ago
  Passive resistance is still resistance. It's the gateway to any sympathetic contingency.
  - AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
    Where’s the passive resistance? This user is still on twitter and actively promoting their handle there
    - ianbutler 8mo ago
      "We also as individuals [without billions] have fairly limited capacity to directly act against these things. I donate a fair bit to the EFF for instance and I've sent outreach to representatives multiple times over the years for specific bills and when its possible I vote against surveillance." - from a parallel thread I was commenting in. I'm totally fine stopping at minimizing my culpability. I sleep just fine at night and don't really jump at purity tests like you seem to want. I'm not other people's savior and I don't want to be. If you want to put your energy into that, I support you.
      - AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
        Then don’t jump into a conversation as though you have some answer if all you’re doing is virtue signaling that you’re detached
        ianbutler 8mo ago
        > Don't lump me in that "we". I did no such thing. I know exactly how it could be abused and have spent 12 years intentionally not working for companies that perpetuate it. I don't think you know how to read because I certainly didn't do that. But also go fuck yourself. This is why no one cares about your causes btw because weird angry little dudes isn't a good look.

s5300 8mo ago

[dead]

IhateAI 8mo ago

It was always intended to be used that way, the programmatic advertising industry is a product of US Nat Sec.

fauchletenerum 8mo ago

From day one everyone who worked on these ad-tech surveillance systems knew they had the capability for abuse. They were built to come as close as possible to the legal limits of surveillance and in several notable cases crossed that line. This isn't a surprise to anyone

tosapple 8mo ago
The way I understand it, which may be dated: is that if it's automated or robotic it doesn't qualify as an "unreasonable search or seizure".
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  Or if it's a third party. The government is allowed to hire corporate contractors that don't obey the constitution.
  - tosapple 8mo ago
    [dead]

potamic 8mo ago

There was a narrative here earlier that I'd rather trust Google/Apple with my data than any other company or any government. The end result is the same in the end. When it comes to privacy, the only thing that works is zero trust.