| |
| ▲ | classichasclass 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > nor correlate it with their other patients' data. Halting that would pretty much be the end of public health analysis or real-world work on medication effectiveness/adverse reactions. We do a lot of work with deidenitifed data to find health patterns in populations. | | |
| ▲ | jsrozner 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I agree. One of the things this debate reflects is that societies really do need substantial trust: I want to trust that if my healthcare data is aggregated, then it will actually be used to serve society (and me). In practice, data is often aggregated and then used to deprive some folks of healthcare, or sold to a pharma company below cost, with the pharma company then turning around and maximizing drug profits, where the drug was developed from the underpriced public data. |
| |
| ▲ | mrngld 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Let me get it straight. You want to be able to engage with a commercial entity, but you don't want that commercial entity to be able to look at anything that results from you interacting with them? That doesn't even sound like a good user experience. I want the companies I engage in business with to be able to look at the data within the confines of our relationship and be able to do useful things with it. If you don't want Google to be able to do anything at all with information you put into their system, easy, don't open an account! I can agree with some of the other points, Google shouldn't be hoovering up mountains of data, etc. Just have to be careful of extremes. If you enshrine something bad in something as difficult to change as a constitution, you're stuck with it, and all your unintended consequences, potentially forever. You say "you can't actually enforce this totally in practice" but have you ever met a law firm? They would absolutely take the most extreme possible interpretation and milk all of society for billions a year if they can find an appropriate avenue. This kind of extremism is what derailed some constitutional reforms in South America over the past decade. It started with reasonable center-left people saying some reasonable things, the radical left seized the process and wrote the final draft and faced with a choice between insanity and an unsatisfactory status quo people made the only palatable choice. | | |
| ▲ | jsrozner 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your argument applies to the grocery pricing situation: "if you don't want the grocery store to aggregate all of your interactions, don't shop there". All aspects of the commercial transaction should be clear and transparent: I give the grocery store cash, it gives me food. My data shouldn't be taken from me, and nor should I have to consent to my data to be taken from me in order to shop there. Google can store and serve me my data. It cannot use my data for commercial purposes that do not directly serve me. Nor should it be able to aggregate my interactions in a way that serves to increase its own profit, as this, over time, increases the relative power of the firm. | | |
| ▲ | twoodfin an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Nothing is “taken” when a shopkeeper writes down in his notebook that Sam Gallo bought two loaves of bread and a gallon of milk. I’m glad the parent of this thread specified the need for a Constitutional amendment. Anything less would be an obvious intrusion on free speech. | | |
| ▲ | jsrozner 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I agree. Hand-taken notes are valid. If a single individual wants to follow me around in the physical world and record my every action, then so be it. But if the single individual begins using robots to follow me around, it becomes problematic. The issue is in the power of the technology that is deployed. What's less clear is where to draw the line: can the shopkeeper type his notes (yes), but can he fill his store with surveillance cameras that correlate my every entry into his store (this one becomes unreasonable and this is the case for which we need laws). |
| |
| ▲ | consensus1 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Does showing you less ads for things you actually want to buy instead of more random adds serve you directly? You could make a pretty solid argument that it does. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, ads are approximately never to your benefit, and if they are, it's entirely by accident. Their entire purpose is to corrupt your preferences or misinform you to the benefit of the advertiser. If you actually wanted to buy the thing, they wouldn't need to spend money on ads (and anyone competent would measure lift over a baseline, not just raw "did people buy the thing" for campaign effectiveness). If you're to see any ads at all, it is vastly preferable that you see random ads for things that you would never be interested in and that register as pure noise to you. Things you could be convinced to buy, or propaganda that elicits some response (positive or negative) are the worst case to encounter. | | |
| ▲ | consensus1 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe you think so, but if Youtube offered a choice between targeted ads or 5x more untargeted I bet that > 90% of people would take the former. | |
| ▲ | baggy_trough 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Quite a delusional point of view! | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll an hour ago | parent [-] | | So delusional that targeted advertising (a massively expensive thing to build) makes more money than random advertising, and advertisers are willing to pay a premium, leading to some of the biggest companies on the planet being in the business of targeting advertising! Almost like it's effective at manipulating people into making decisions they wouldn't otherwise make. And then entirely unsurprisingly, professional propagandists also manage to convince people that the proper reaction to being manipulated is "thank you sir, may I have another?" | | |
| ▲ | baggy_trough an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's not a mystery that targeted advertising works better than random advertising and therefore commands a premium. It's an unjustified leap from that to the scary sounding 'manipulation'. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Taking wikipedia's definition: > In psychology, manipulation is defined as an deliberate action that aims to influence or control another person in an underhanded or subtle manner which facilitates one's personal motives. Does that not describe pretty much all advertising? It's not like advertisers are going out and researching all other deals that are out there and making sure that theirs really is the best, and then paying to put theirs in front of you because they're just so great and want to help you out. No, they're putting themselves in front of you and hoping you don't notice that they're just another white label of some Alibaba special that costs 10% more than the other Alibaba white label. Or trying to pound into your head through constant repeated messaging that you want their thing when you don't, actually (oh and ignore that it will make you fat, give you cancer, lead to your financial ruin, etc. It's fun. And cool people do it. In fact only uncool people don't). Playing happy music when it's them. Playing stern music when it's their opponents. Look, if you gamble with us, you can be a BIG WINNER! LOOK HOW HAPPY AND RICH YOU COULD BE! etc. Then to make it extra effective, they spy on you to learn everything about your life, and intentionally feed your insecurities to make you into a softer target. Some kids might end up killing themselves when they take that a bit too far, but hey, what can you do? There is no ethical low to which that segment of society will not sink. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Does showing you less ads for things you actually want to buy instead of more random adds serve you directly? It does until that mechanism is turned against me, as I have to assume it will be. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | danny_codes 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But Google is a monopoly, so you have little choice in the matter. Unfortunately these things are never so clean as in the theoretical model. As a monopoly, there are likely many situations where interaction with said monopoly is unavoidable. |
| |
| ▲ | robertlagrant 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > but the doctor shouldn't be able to sell my data, nor correlate it with their other patients' data This definitely happens, at least in the UK. With anonymised data. | |
| ▲ | jsrozner 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I love the downvotes, probably from the people who like making money screwing over their fellow citizens. |
|
