Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 125

Thread: Surveillance capitalism.

  1. Top | #61
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,015
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    sigh

    Basically, it's nonsense that capitalism needs to be shoe-horned into this. It's in it up to its neck, and probably further.
    The Koch Brothers thank you for that.
    Because.........of...your false dichotomy between systems and actors. Ok.

  2. Top | #62
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,015
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    OR, they are missing the point that no one in the public square has explicitly consented to being observed by other people in the public square and thus there is a reason why the argument is actually about an expectation of privacy and how that gets defined in regard to thinking you're not in a public square because it's digital and your analogue self is in your underwear in the basement of your own home.
    Too simplistic I think. Just because I'm in a public square does not mean I should give up all my privacy. Just because I went into a toothpaste shop in 1976 does not mean I had to give the shop owner my home address. It seems to me you're arguing for an extreme version of disclosure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    I didn't give you explicit consent to harvest the data I've presented itt about my writing habits for you to make any judgement about me and yet...
    But I know where you live. The street, the house number. Everything. You didn't realise that, did you? It's ok, you're fine. I have no malintent. You believe me, right? You can trust me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    But.....you post in pretty much the same manner on all topics, koy!
    NOW do you get the point?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And they are and that's why EVERY service provider has a TOS. It is on YOU, however, to actually read those things and police your own shit. Caveat emptor.
    Caveat emptor? Seriously? That's an extremely outdated standard here in the UK.



    I honestly don't know what the rest of your post as about.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 12-06-2019 at 09:33 PM.

  3. Top | #63
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,015
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Great, then we can dispense with ALL the other pointless noise that DBT and you also included in your posts and focus on, for example, the Koch Brothers' intent. How do we stop it? It's not about Capitalism. Far from it. It's not about technology. That's just the knife they use to slit throats; the same knife you or I use to cut cake.
    I think that's either a false or a non-pragmatic dichotomy. The Koch Brothers arguably exemplify a certain version of capitalism. You're trying to treat the two, Koch Brothers and that type of capitalism, as completely separate things. I have no idea why.

    Obviously, something like information is, of itself neutral, and it is only what it is used for that matters. Nobody would disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    So, I'm wide open. How do we prevent bad actors from acting badly? Taking all knives away just means you can't cut your cake and they'll just find another way to slit your throat. Because that's what INTENT is about.
    I'm not suggesting taking capitalism away (I'm guessing that's your 'neutral knife'). I'm not anti-capitalism. I'm a capitalist, basically. Sensible and reasonable limits or controls on and accountability for the use of the knife is generally a good idea, imo.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 12-06-2019 at 10:17 PM.

  4. Top | #64
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,015
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    Shop Owner: "Oh hi, DBT, good to see you today. I just got a shipment of X in, but not as much as I ordered, and they are selling like hotcakes. Anyway, I saved some for you because I knew you would be in today, and I know you really like X..."

    DBT: "How dare you, you sonuvabitch?! Stick it where the sun don't shine, and mind your own goddamn business! You just forget everything you know about me, including my name, or I will never frequent your shop again."
    Is it quite like that though? Isn't it more like:

    Shop Owner: "Oh hi, DBT, good to see you today. I just got a shipment of X in, but not as much as I ordered, and they are selling like hotcakes. Anyway, I saved some for you because I knew you would be in today, and I know you really like X, so I've sent a letter to your house, and to your friend's houses, and anyone you've ever met who seems likely to want X, to let you and them know."

    DBT: "ok, thanks, I don't actually want any more X, but...... how exactly did you find out my address.... and come to think of it the addresses of my friends?."

    I'm not saying the shop owner in that scenario is the embodiment of pure evil, obviously. I'm just saying it was not quite the same back in the day.

    And if you factor in 'bad shopkeepers' (although they're probably global corporations these days, with enormous amounts of money, therefore enormous amounts of power, including in the political arena) who might want to exploit your predilection for X, or something else they know about you, to try to manipulate you in other ways, basically so they can make shedloads more money (and they like having certain politicians in power who will let them do that much more easily, and we don't even need to specifically get into some of the ways they might want to make the extra shedloads of money, such as by being allowed to increase profits by cheaply polluting the environment, or shortchanging workers, or having politicians who will look the other way when they sell ropey mortgages to poor people, or sell on the ropey mortgages wrapped up as supposedly non-ropey investments to unsuspecting foreigners, or selling bombs to people who will drop them on civilians, and we also don't necessarily need to assume they'll necessarily be telling lies to you, your fiends and everyone, but it is a distinct possibility) then things might take on a slightly more potentially sinister complexion.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 12-06-2019 at 10:19 PM.

  5. Top | #65
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    The Koch Brothers arguably exemplify a certain version of capitalism.
    Perhaps in an ironic sense, since what they actually exemplify (i.e., what they practice as opposed to what they preach) is totalitarianism; the destruction of free markets, the destruction of competition, not its champion.

    I don't mean as a goal, I mean they believe themselves to be above competition. In their minds, they have been ordained by their god to already be the winners, thus they can rhetorically blather on about how important it is for government to get out of the way of competition and let the markets determine the winners, because they already know that they are the winners.

    They're actually advocating for coronation, not laissez-faire capitalism. Their Randian libertarianism is duplicitous, narcissistic horseshit meant to ironically obfuscate the fact that what they actually want is for government to stop meddling in what they see as their birthright.

    But regardless, that has nothing to do with whether or not it's justified to equivocate marketing with capitalism and then capitalism with black hat "surveillance."

    Obviously, something like information is, of itself neutral, and it is only what it is used for that matters. Nobody would disagree.
    The information is the knife. Clear now?

  6. Top | #66
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Just because I'm in a public square does not mean I should give up all my privacy.
    Goddamnit, Ruby stop with the fucking strawmen. I never said anything about "should" or that you give anything up or that you give up "all" of your privacy, so let's simply flip this. You are in the public square sitting on a bench. I enter the public square. What could possibly stop YOU from observing me and making any assessments you desire about me?

    Just because I went into a toothpaste shop in 1976 does not mean I had to give the shop owner my home address.
    "Had" to? Who said anything about "had to." Fucking hell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koy
    I didn't give you explicit consent to harvest the data I've presented itt about my writing habits for you to make any judgement about me and yet...
    But I know where you live.
    Because you either simply observed me leave my house or I otherwise informed you either directly or indirectly in a number of different ways; e.g., by carrying around the address on a big placard that always hovers above my user profile head everywhere I go in the town square that I created and "posted" publicly.

    Hell, ever heard of the Yellow Pages? The government just used to drop a huge fucking book of everyone's name, address and phone number in it right on your doorstep every year. And you didn't even need a super computer to find my address in it. Imagine that.

    It's ok, you're fine. I have no malintent. You believe me, right? You can trust me.
    Even if I didn't trust you, there's fuck-all I could do to stop you if your INTENT is mal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    But.....you post in pretty much the same manner on all topics, koy!
    NOW do you get the point?
    No.
    You collected data about me from the public square--that I never gave you consent to take--and used it to profile me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And they are and that's why EVERY service provider has a TOS. It is on YOU, however, to actually read those things and police your own shit. Caveat emptor.
    Caveat emptor? Seriously?
    Yes, seriously.

    That's an extremely outdated standard here in the UK.
    Bully for the UK. I didn't realize you spoke for it. So, great, tell us exactly which stores in the UK require you to give them your home address before they will sell you toothpaste, or any other product for that matter.

    I honestly don't know what the rest of your post as about.
    Well, that would be par for the course then, I guess.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 12-07-2019 at 04:05 AM.

  7. Top | #67
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Is it quite like that though? Isn't it more like:

    Shop Owner: "Oh hi, DBT, good to see you today. I just got a shipment of X in, but not as much as I ordered, and they are selling like hotcakes. Anyway, I saved some for you because I knew you would be in today, and I know you really like X, so I've sent a letter to your house, and to your friend's houses, and anyone you've ever met who seems likely to want X, to let you and them know."


    DBT: "ok, thanks, I don't actually want any more X, but...... how exactly did you find out my address.... and come to think of it the addresses of my friends?."
    Let's finish that conversation, shall we?

    Shop Owner: Um, you told me your address when you wanted X delivered and then you consented to let me see all of your friend's addresses when you set up your profile on Facebook. And they also consented to let me see their addresses and send them letters too. But, relax your fucking crack, because it's just a letter offering them a discount on X and if you or they don't want that again then they can simply click the "unsubscribe" button and poof, it goes away.
    But, you know, that's not dramatic, so...

    I'm not saying the shop owner in that scenario is the embodiment of pure evil, obviously. I'm just saying it was not quite the same back in the day.
    You're right, because "back in the day" marketers had to send EVERYBODY IN YOUR TOWN the same catalogue and the same "junk" mail that had nothing you'd want as opposed to today when they can send you specific discounts on ONLY the things that you most often purchase.

    OHMYGODHOWHORRIBLE!

    But, but, but, they know your [email] address!

    And if you factor in 'bad shopkeepers' (although they're probably global corporations these days, with enormous amounts of money, therefore enormous amounts of power, including in the political arena)
    And now we slip into equivocation.....

    who might want to exploit your predilection for X, or something else they know about you, to try to manipulate you in other ways
    In "other" ways. So, because you like Crest toothpaste; it's white; you must like white things; you're a Neo-Nazi! Got it four.

    And now within your equivocation fallacy we shift AWAY from marketing--away from using the knife to cut cake--and into using the knife for no other purpose but to slit throats...

    basically so they can make shedloads more money
    How? By trying to influence voters to change their ideological position and vote in a certain way? So, now we have completely jettisoned anything to do with using the knife to eat cake.

    And has this ever happened "back in the day"? Wait, don't tell me; they didn't have super computers back in the day, so THAT's why it's now somehow different and not the fact that the common denominator is the fact that they didn't NEED super computers back in the day to nevertheless attempt to do the same kind of influence campaign that likely had roughly the same effect judging once again from the Koch failure to turn the blue tide in 2018 and the fact that the Russian efforts were MASSIVE and only managed to move the needle a tiny percentage (less than 1%, if in fact at all as we still don't have a clear assessment).

    So, once again, blame the technology, not the bad actors. That's the way to stop these things. Don't deal with the intent, just demonize the tools. The knife is to blame!

    (and they like having certain politicians in power who will let them do that much more easily
    And now we've gone from a very large circle in the Venn diagram of fever dreams down to an extremely small circle of bad actors that has ZERO to do with marketing.

    and we don't even need to specifically get into some of the ways they might want to make the extra shedloads of money
    No, of course not, because that would completely deflate your boogeyman. Oh, like what you did here in this blatant series of false equivalences:

    such as by being allowed to increase profits by cheaply polluting the environment
    So, marketing is to blame for a company polluting the environment.

    or shortchanging workers
    So, marketing is to blame for a company short changing their workers.

    *snip gross ignorance of what actually happened in the mortgage crisis* or selling bombs to people who will drop them on civilians
    So, marketing is to blame for war crimes.

    and we also don't necessarily need to assume they'll necessarily be telling lies to you, your fiends and everyone, but it is a distinct possibility) then things might take on a slightly more potentially sinister complexion.
    Well, then, by god, you'd better kill all the marketers because that's the only way you'll stop war crimes from occurring and companies shortchanging their workers and companies polluting the environment, because none of that every happened "back in the day," right!!??

    You've posted some mighty insipid nonsense before ruby, but this is truly impressive. Congratulations.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 12-07-2019 at 05:09 AM.

  8. Top | #68
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,234
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,140
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post

    That may be correct, but what you are failing to realize is that that they had the ability to know what information is being acquired if they cared. Every lawful entity that acquired that information had to disclose that they were doing so, before doing so.
    We all know that our private information is being acquired by big business interests....the issue being that we have no control of exactly what is being acquired, who can get access to it or how it is used.

    That is the point. That we essentially have no say on what is being acquired, where it goes or how it is used.

    Seeing that it is our private information it is hardly reasonable that we have no control over who gets a hold of it or how they happen to use it.

    Which is why legislators need to pull their thumbs out of their arses and put protection measures into place.



    Quote Originally Posted by KeepTalking View Post
    I bet your local shop owners just love you.

    Shop Owner: "Oh hi, DBT, good to see you today. I just got a shipment of X in, but not as much as I ordered, and they are selling like hotcakes. Anyway, I saved some for you because I knew you would be in today, and I know you really like X..."

    DBT: "How dare you, you sonuvabitch?! Stick it where the sun don't shine, and mind your own goddamn business! You just forget everything you know about me, including my name, or I will never frequent your shop again."
    That's not a comparison. Not even close.

  9. Top | #69
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,648
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    We all know that our private information
    And round and round she goes, how she defines "private" nobody knows.

  10. Top | #70
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,234
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,140
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Here’s a suggestion
    You spend thirty years in professional marketing positions in New York and get your master's degree in it? Great, then you might actually learn something instead of what I have to put up with; suffering fools who think that being schooled in something they demonstrably do not understand is an insult.
    But.....you post in pretty much the same manner on all topics, koy!

    So I'm leaving my suggestion there for you to consider. Either you agree that the reports of unconsented-to data are correct, or they are dud reports. And if they're accurate and for some reason you don't have any problems with data being harvested without consent, then fine. We'd probably disagree. I think most people might be at least somewhat concerned though, probably because of where the data might potentially end up or what it might be used for.
    Plus there is the principle of privacy. The right to privacy. Something that we are rapidly losing as the technological capacity to gather information increases. Worse, it seems that many people seem oblivious to an ever greater loss of privacy and control of their own information.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •