This is somewhat peripheral - but not really:
This is not the same trial denoted above (altho it's moderately analogous), and it doesn't get at the aggregation issue, but today another blow has been struck for fairness and equity:
Federal jury says Google’s app store violated antitrust law | CNN Business
Everybody knew this, and they shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it for so long.
Keep knocking down those walls and monopolies..........
Google to pay $700 million to US states, consumers in Play store settlement | CNN Business
Hey TN,
I know you are very sensitive about these things. In case you have not yet come across, this channel may be interesting for you.
Didn't have time to watch it all tonight (will later), but yeah, a lot of that I know. My main point is that, imo, it's "evil" for someone, or some entity, to make money off of me (or you, or whoever), by the mere fact of us just living our life. The privacy concerns are probably the biggest deal in general, but my main objection is the making money by aggregation. I don't have a google account, don't do apps, or faceybook, or any social media, so I'm far less exposed than some/most. But yes, we unavoidably give up some 'freedom' for the advantages the devil(s) offer. What kills me is that 99+% of peeps don't even read the privacy statements that come with those deals. They don't realize, for example...........that, say, after a family reunion, the various participants put up a bunch of pics of it on faceybook. Zuckerberg now OWNS those - unless you had the foresight to copyright them. (And even then the legality is murky.) Is that right/fair? I personally don't think so, but obviously most think it's just fine. "Cost of doing bizness", I guess.
Europe has been much more careful in keeping these things from getting out of hand, and in reining them back in. California has been following suite. But Americans, in my experience, are woefully (and/or willingly) ignorant of what we've allowed to take place. One of the many cases of technology being too far out in front of protection.
TN, have you seen The Social Dilemma or The Great Hack on Netflix?
Or also anything about Cambridge Analytica stuff? The first two especially inspire pretty much anyone to at least pause their social media. 5 years ago I was always on Snapchat and instagram and Facebook. Now I have it all paused. As for Gmail, have my privacy settings as strict as it can be, I always delete cookies and browser history ( I loathe targeted advertising, and in fact, when I know for sure it’s targeted I make a point to not use that product, lol) but still, the days of privacy seem to be gone, at least for a while. I hope we all get better at learning about this stuff and caring enough about it to incite good reason for more states to learn to legislate it better.
In 2008ish, Wired ran a cover story about NSA data collection. I majored in jour and a few professors had mentioned data mining and how it would become a bigger deal. I remember saying to my sis that this was gonna get bigger soon, so she saved the mag for me and gave it as a gift later. It’s crazy to think that back then, hardly anyone even knew what data collection was. Even as late as 2013ish, My mom joked I’m a conspiracy theorist when I told her grocery stores savings card collect info on our purchases lol- she wouldn’t believe me. A few years later, that was common knowledge. Now it’s all become normalized and some even see it as a benefit without realizing the downsides. I agree we here in the US need to be quicker in learning how to pass responsible laws that hold tech companies accountable and require them to prioritize safety and privacy. The internet used to be so much more than all these fake reviews, ads, and sham articles. Even many legit sites now sensationalize for clickbait. It’s maddening and really quite sad the effect it’s having on society as a whole. It’s literally changing the fabric of our reality in some ways.
What also bothers me is the fact that, until we really pass some big laws, (which the docs cover that many lawmakers simply just don’t know enough about it to do as well at that as quickly as they should) it doesn’t matter that much if I became smart and safer if ever there was a time I wasn’t, because a few things you don’t know to be safe about as a teenager or whatever age can still wreak havoc even if you learn later.
You’d prob really like them. Maybe they’re available elsewhere. It puts a lot of stuff in laymen’s terms, in case there’s anyone you know who you’d like to explain to. I had one of my best friends watch it and he was one of those who posted on instagram a few times daily for several years. After watching, he immediately deleted all his social media.
The Social Dilemma has some of the major players of FB and Google saying that basically no one set out to make these things so unhealthy and intrusive, but it happened anyway and now many of them are begging people to take a step back. One or two even mention they don’t let their kids use the tech they helped create.
The Great Hack is rlly just crazy and messed up. It focuses on how data is used to manipulate and influence and how Cambridge Analytics specifically used people’s data to swing elections to the highest bidder. It also has a video where a journalist sits at a table near Alexander Nix, (the former CEO of C.A.) during a lunch meeting where he’s offering some guy his services and Nix tells the guy flat out how he can use data to make people do what he wants, bragging that he can send a prostitute to someone’s house or something and then blackmail them or have law enforcement damage their credibility for the right price. It’s pretty sick and especially when looking back at the turmoil of the time. It seems pretty clear they were responsible for the loss of democracy in some areas. They also may have had a hand in Brexit stuff.
The doc also includes info taken from C.A. Meetings where they detail how they manipulated elections for pay, as well as the trial that took place when it all came to light. There’s some Russia stuff as well. It’s very uncool but a fascinating watch and I’m glad they got busted, but it also seemed to me that they scapegoated a few folks and will prob keep doing it under the guise of some other company until they rlly get shut down hard.
All that Cambridge Analytica stuff was big news and fairly well documented there for quite a while. (Altho I'm sure the documentary has more detail with the benefit of hindsight and further "coming in from the cold" of some of the actors.)
And (VERY) sadly................. Remember google's original mantra/motto? "Don't be evil." My, my, how times change (when the $$$$ starts rolling in). That's why [sorry, Denny, for the social commentary] libertarianism won't work well in society. If every citizen lived ethically, and lived by the golden rule (or some approximation thereof), then we wouldn't really need laws, or many of them. But all it takes is a handful - or maybe just one - to ruin things for everybody else with their greed and selfishness. The human heart is dark, and given its chance, will corrupt; and so the old saw about power corrupting is just too true, unfortunately. But google's hypocrisy in deviating (turning back from) from it's original motto is just so very sad and woeful. [See original post with which I started this thread.]
.steps back down from soapbox (at least for the time being)
Yeah, I know googles motto and I think they mention that a few times in The Social Dilemma. That one’s mostly about the perils of social media and how it’s changing the fabric of society.
I have to say tho, at least in regards to the few googles guys on that doc, some of it may really have been accidental /well intentioned. It’s easy to imagine how, when in a fixed mindset, you really may start out thinking you’re doing a good thing. Especially if you're one to think all problems can be solved by tech.
This is the difficulty of these constructs we all get so engrained in. The professor thinks academia can solve the worlds problems, the construction worker thinks tools and building will, the preacher says it’s religion, the wall street guy knows it must be a healthy economy,the artist knows it’s art, and so on and so on. So of course, when the techie thinks tech will solve everything, and these guys start making pretty neat tools, they don’t rlly think about the downside, so enchanted they were with the idea of what good could come. (The thing is though, it’s all these things, -but- IN BALANCE.)
They mention quite a few times the idea of connectivity, how appealing the possibility seemed, to bring everyone together. It was a nice idea and to be fair, a lot of these ideas do have positive uses and can be helpful in many ways.
For example, the guy that created FBs “like” button is featured on the doc, and he seems sincere when he says basically that he really didn’t envision at all that it would become some addictive gage of personal likability. They convinced themselves it was a way to spread positivity, to let someone know you support them. Butttt, of course, people as a whole, when mob mentality kicks in, don’t always know well how to practice self discipline. And then it all gets really out of hand. As one or 2 mention, these platforms don’t call their clients “clients”, but rather “users”, and they note that the only other thing we commonly say users about is in regards to drugs. They highlight that, because they say that these tools are now, or at least were, starting to be designed specifically to addict those using the platforms. Once hooked, revenue flows. But that wasn’t the intention to begin with.
Another example, one of the guys working at google started to get really addicted to checking his email. He started seeing changes in his friends and family who were also becoming addicted to it. He started noticing many people were talking less in real life, paying little attention to their surroundings or people around them, but fully focused on laptops and cell phones. He mentioned this to his superiors and he says they were interested and became more so. They wanted him to do more research and see if he could come up with any solutions. The problem is there really was none, short of asking people to use their product less. Eventually this guy started to be really troubled by the way the platform was evolving, so he stepped away from google and founded The Institute for Ethical Technology (or something like that). He even says though that the guys above him were also concerned, it’s just that all these places were 1) competing with each other. ( Like techies say abt ai, most don’t think it’s a good idea but if they don’t do it someone else will, so it’s better to have a hand in it) 2) once these platforms were a thing, “users” drove its development and at a certain point, a lot of it was hard to control. It became give the people what they want. Unfortunately, there are many times where what we want and what we need are vastly different.
I don’t mean to rant but it’s a topic that interests me. I can totally see how social media, etc, could’ve become a whole new creature without anyone initially intending it to become so toxic. That said, when data collection came into play at such large rates, I do think it became their responsibility to rein themselves in, and I don’t see that they did. Even now, where some kind of are, it seems like it’s too little too late and mostly just to give appearance of ethical rather than to be ethical. We see this kind of thing all the time in mythology and in cultural stories worldwide-the well intentioned guy becoming a bit tyrannical because eventually “no man can resist power.” I don’t believe that’s true that no one can- I just think it’s rlly difficult. Probably especially when you’re making lots of money and making other people lots of money and are surrounded by folks calling you a genius and telling you how great you’re doing.
It should also be said that social media, as well as targeted advertising, is now effectively brainwashing. I mean, that’s what it is. Some people may laugh at that term, but that’s because they envision some swirly circled hypnosis type deal. But the most affective forms of influence and social engineering, when done well, generally mean someone won’t know when it happens.
The guys on the social dilemma doc say, I’m paraphrasing, but something like, “we’ve heard several times people say, ‘these things won’t change me. Maybe they’d change others, but not me. I’m not so easily duped’ But the thing is these algorithms are so advanced and designed to actively engage you personally, in a very customized, specific way. Even incredibly smart people become manipulated without even knowing it.”
And so that’s what we’ve been seeing. Real time changes from a literal group speak platform that sometimes drifts into a near hive mind type of eeriness. It’s a bit scary at times because then you have certain people using an already controversial and fairly damaging tool in even more damaging ways. Some stand to profit from divisive attitudes, so pit whole groups of people against each other. Some create trendy viewpoints, again for profit, that people can become obsessive over. Some use it to stalk, sto obsess over, to envy, to harass. Some even seem to dabble in full on propaganda.
The desires to do these things were already there in some, it’s just far easier to reach a lot of people instantly now. It depends on the person or group of people and their agenda. Personally I think privacy is a human right and that no ones personal info should be at the whims of a strangers moods. I also admit though that I don’t see any actionable good solution to any of it. It’s like, I don’t like war, right? But I also realize that while there are those who cause harm, war may be necessary at times. I’m not really sure.
I’m also a vegetarian, I don’t believe people really need to eat meat anymore to survive, so I think it’s cruel to kill animals, who I don’t believe are any lesser than people. That said, I don’t see how that would happen. Even if everyone decided not to slaughter animals anymore, would it even work logistically? No idea. And I don’t judge people who do eat meat, it’s just a sad thing to me. It’s the same type thing for those who are zombies on their phones. I used to be like that, I don’t judge it, but it still sucks and makes me sad. But what’s the solution? Tell people they can’t use it anymore?
I think folks should be able to do what they want as long as it’s causing no real harm to another. And it’s just easier to be a zombie sometimes I guess. The world can be exhausting so I get it. But man it sucks when you’re out of that headspace and want your family to come back to the real world and remember what actual conversations are.
If I were to guess, I’d say the only real way to avoid the negative affects is to remind ourselves that we don’t constantly need to be on trend or gaining approval from someone else in order to be happy. I agree that the human heart can be dark, but it can also be joyful, and I find that’s a good thing to remember- there may be no heros and villains after all, only people, each of us capable of good and bad. The behaviors, the actions, the choices are good or bad. But people themselves are not immutable and we can all change our mindsets at any given moment, with enough effort. We just have to want to.
I don't disagree that some of those things weren't intentionally bad - but then some were. As for example the linked "Wired" article above from Dec. 11, 2020 (it's become harder to read since I posted it, but one can still read it by repeatedly jailbreaking it). And let's look again/more at faceybook. What was going thru his mind when he decided that he could/should OWN anything and everything posted thereon. That's just purely and simply wrong - however one looks at it. That's greed and selfishness.
Oh neat, I didn’t even see your wired link.
I mentioned that other wired article without even knowing that, what a coincidence.
I guess I just think about the article (it’d take me a while to find) whenever the subject comes up bc it was one of those things that I knew would be important, tho at the time wasn’t really sure why.
Also, tbh, I’ve never rlly read up a whole lot on Zuckerberg. I know a lot of the dumb stuff fb has done, and some of it def isn’t cool, but I never rlly read enough abt him personally to decide if I think he’s actually some evil genius type, or even just sort of emotionally dumb, or if he’s actually just sort of the poster boy for something that was supported by others.
For some reason in my mind I’ve always viewed him as someone that created something and then was probably sort of encouraged to let it become something else. Don’t know why I’ve thought that and I could be totally off. And don’t get me wrong, I think he created fb and that he has a lot of say with it. But I guess whenever there’s so much hype around something that also definitely benefits more powerful ppl, I tend to assume the hype is there for a reason. It’s just hard to believe that anyone so young, no matter how careful, could become so super successful without other major players helping it along in a big way. Idk though, what do you think?
I just know that if I had a great idea that would put me in competition with the wealthiest ppl in the world ( not that I’d EVER want that, truly- ugh I can’t even imagine how yuck and stressy that life would be) I’m almost positive someone would screw me over early on and I’d wind up reading about all the credit the person that stole my good idea gets every day for the rest of my life, lol. It’s rlly hard to believe any young gun could pull it off alone. Idk that world at all I just would think it’d be pretty cut throat and a lot of intimidation
I am by NO means a Zuckerberg expert. Hardly. But I do think he had a genius idea, and knew enough, or figured out enough, to monetize it rather handsomely. But I also suspect he's, as you put it, "emotionally dumb" - at least on some channels. I think he fairly early on could see what the result of his 'invention' would be, but didn't grasp the negative aspects of it. Or more likely(??), didn't care.
Also, I **may** actually have that edition of "Wired" of which you write, altho I kinda doubt that one specifically. But I'm pretty sure I have one from that year. As if......
Lol. It actually only took me about 3 seconds to find. And my bad, not 2008ish, but rather 2012.
I’m sure there were some before, but it wasn’t widely reported on.
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff-nsadatacenter/
..Not exactly to do with the kind of every day data mining private companies use that we were talking about, but it was the first big story about any data collection that I remember reading at all. At the time it seemed a bit fantastic, almost like “well but surely this must be exaggerated somehow.”
that’s what remains so incredible about it to me. That in 2012 it was big news that the nsa, a govt agency known for this kind of thing, was collecting data and basically spying on millions of people. Flash forward not even a decade later, maybe only like 5 years, and people just expect most ordinary companies to do that.
That’s whats so crazy. People were shocked at the idea that the nsa would collect personal details, then suddenly they expect it from just about anyone. Almost no one I knew, and certainly not me, really even knew what cookies were. And Targeted advertising practices would’ve sounded like sci fi then. I just don’t even understand how that changed so fast? One of the oddest turnarounds I’ve seen culturally in my lifetime, mostly because I never understood how or why it became so accepted so quickly. 10 years ago people would’ve been screaming in the streets about it. Now it’s no big.
Oh and speaking of sci fi, it’s all just a little bit too Phil k dickian for my liking. In fact, I can’t watch or read any of his stuff anymore without feeling a bit uneasy, ha. Cheers to VALIS, I guess ?¿
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/data-mining-and-kids-part-1-thank-goodness-she-didnt-pay-cash/
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/henry-farrell-philip-k-dick-and-fake-humans/
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20220301-philip-k-dick-the-writer-who-witnessed-the-future
The addiction to the phone overrides all privacy concerns.
"Thank God. I was afraid I was just paranoid."
P.K.Dick on finding out he had indeed been under FBI and CIA surveillance
Jack- love the pkd quote. I find both the addiction and privacy concerns to be a bit creepy, not sure which I’d pick for scariest. Re Phil,
I never understood why my sis liked sci fi until I got older. She’s older than me so before that I prob just pretended to like a lot of it for her approval, lol. About a decade ago I was in a graphic design class where had to make a faux mag cover. At the time I had no idea abt any elements of design and many of us were just learning the software, so I thought the assignment was to simply try and copy the look of another mag bc that seemed hard enough. (It wasn’t- it was to create our own cover, but thankfully, my prof understood my confusion and didn’t think I was trying to plagiarize- a thing I’d never do.)
Before I realized my error, I chose a Wired mag with Grant Morrison either on the cover or as a feature. I wound up reading it because I was working with it so much and the article called him the prophet of the comic world or something. It peaked my curiosity a bit then and slowly over the years I’ve read and seen more examples of how often sci fi and comic writers get it so right.
This could all be chalked up to a few things, one being that many writers do their research on cutting edge tech and even likely future tech and then let their imaginations, and the lessons of history, help them create stories abt its possible consequences. Another is that certain tropes and themes get written about repeatedly and the cycle of influence runs it’s course until we’re all left asking, um, is art imitating life or is life imitating art? I’d once never have imagined how difficult it can become to tell, at times.
As you quoted PKD, I’m sure you prob know that when writing about possible eerie consequences of tech and some sort of dystopian society, most think of 2 names. Orwell and Huxley.
Where Orwell imagined an authoritarian type of world with basic knowledge &truth forbidden to the common man, (this has obvi happened before, we just tend to forget now that there was ever a time where learning was reserved for the elite) Huxley imagined we’d be so bogged down in info that we’d stop caring about it and would take it for granted, and that anything of importance would be lost in the roar of so much trite.
Some say Orwells world is on the rise, others say Huxleys. If I had to choose I’d say there can be flashes of either at diff times, and hopefully remain only that- mere flashes. Some of Huxleys stuff perhaps seems more likely to rear it’s head more frequently, but tbh I’ve never read his works, only works about his works. And I try not to take for granted that we do have many tools and info at our fingertips that even a hundred years ago people would have had to go to great lengths to find.
One of the articles I linked mentions PKDs world being a bit closer to truth, which is funny and strange for a few reasons, (which again you prob already know but I’ll say anyway.)
1-Phil literally started to believe his own stuff. A few years ago I watched that vid of the press conference he held in France some years before he died. He basically says we’re living in a computer simulated reality and the “only clue” we have to its existence is when it changes some variable that only some can remember.
2-he never said he was sure of any of it. He had experiences that he couldn’t explain and spent the rest of his life searching for answers. He was passionate about it, and probably more than a little bit haunted / obsessed by it, but he was not intentionally dishonest. Whatever leaps he made, he felt were his duty to address and try to explain. Even from simply a psychological view, he speaks about synchronicity in a way that is interesting and informative no matter the personal opinions his audience may have about his conclusions.
Like, he mentions bits of his own work later taking place in smaller ways in his own life so he asks himself if these themes were so lodged in his unconscious mind that he had been writing some sort of truth all along.
Whatever anyone’s opinions of him or his ideas, it’s hard to read about certain things now without thinking of him, whether it be in a “oh man, if Phil was right about this I hope it doesn’t mean he was right about all of it..” type way or simply to ask “wow I wonder what Phil would’ve thought about this”
Either way, for me, he’s become a strange contradiction in that I’m somehow both fascinated in learning about him and his views, and also at other times want to know nothing about any of it because it makes it too real and creepy.
Ps, Jack, last year I ordered his exegesis, glanced at a few pages twice before audibly declaring “NOPE”
and it now sits on my bookshelf, awaiting a time where I will be less wimpy to brave its chapters.
(much like Jung’s Red Book. Would love to know what’s in it. But would need my life to be near perfect, with no chance of instability, no possibility of me latching onto a mindset, in order to even dare look into it. I’m not a superstitious person, but I am a very curious one, and paired with my empathy often means I have to be wary of adopting attitudes and beliefs that’d do me no good. But damn if I’m not curious! )
You might speak the set expression, piqued my curiosity in conversation from time to time.
But I’m sure you have come across peaked my curiosity or peeked my curiosity when reading.
The
problem, of course, is that the words piqued, peaked, and peeked are
homonyms.
When we speak, these words don’t cause us any problems because
they sound the same.
However, when you write, it’s better to do a quick check to make sure you’re using the correct word before you publish.
Grant Morrison article in Wired mag peaked my curiosity sounds correct when spoken, but is incorrect when published.
Grant Morrison article in Wired mag piqued my curiosity sounds correct when spoken, and is correct when published.
What about my occasional usage of "ain't"; "if'n"; "coulda, woulda, and shoulda"; "gonna"; "hafta"; "druthers"; "we'uns"; "y'all"; etc.? I've actually heard it postulated that those ain't real words. Us southern hillbillies would feel mighty peak-ed if'n that'd really be the case. We'uns amongst these here hollers await yore insight.