surveillance capitalism - good or whack

[dcom]

On 9/19/2020 at 8:46 PM, dcom said:

I love Jaron Lanier to bits, he's a true treasure;

Here's a recent profile of Lanier, and I also suggest you take a look at his books, including his autobiography. He's an interesting one, right up there with Ted Nelson and other technology luminaries.

Edited September 21, 2020 by dcom

[whosebrian]

Quote

Imgur Fingerprints

In March, while reviewing the data from Hansa Market, SA Mann found a link to an Imgur album containing high resolution pictures of marijuana. Porras provided a potential customer with the album in response to a request for additional pictures of the marijuana Porras had listed on Hansa. The imgur album appears to be this one: imgur.com/a/uy7PY. The pictures included closeup pictures of Porras’ hand with visible fingerprint ridges.

Visible Fingerprints in a Picture Posted by Porras

The Special Agent sent the highest resolution picture to the HSI Forensic Document Laboratory and requested an analysis of the prints. The FDL returned the request after conducting a comparative analysis of the friction ridge detail of the fingerprints from the Imgur album and the fingerprint samples taken after police had arrested Porras for a different crime. The fingerprints in the Imgur album matched the prints they already had on file for Porras.

https://darknetlive.com/post/dream-vendor-canna-bars-sentenced-to-prison/?fbclid=IwAR3O2Nfgeonrr55k1cHdcw_HQHVVISk-gj-LemDFKe44ZZ14d32lLR3Bj2Y

[zero]

[dcom]

Quote

While “creative destruction” is a deeply ambivalent phrase, the word “disruption” is frequently positioned as something to be explicitly celebrated. It becomes something to be taught and striven for. And where Schumpeter’s view of the business cycle presumes a kind of Olympian view from above, disruption puts us in the trenches, and presumptively on the side of the attacker rather than the stalwart. While creative destruction was neutral on whether whatever was getting creatively destroyed deserved it, anything that is getting “disrupted” had it coming.

[...]

The rhetoric of disruption frequently creates solidity, stability and uniformity where it doesn’t exist. The disrupter portrays even the most staid cottage industry as a Death Star against which its plucky rebels have to do battle. Misperceiving, misunderstanding or simply ignoring the industry one is seeking to disrupt seems, if not necessary, then at least no impediment to disrupting it. The world is out there, stupid and driven by habits, ready to be disrupted.

[...]

Disruption depends on regarding people as participating in the business cycle who insist that they’re doing no such thing. And it depends on extending the sense in which the terms “monopoly” or “oligopoly” can be applied. Did big taxi companies once dominate personal transportation, or did thousands of individual cabbies who were barely making ends meet? The term “disruption” makes a monolith of structures and organisations that are old, have grown up organically and are therefore pretty scattered and decentralised. Think about the peculiar alchemy involved in talking about how Google disrupted the media landscape: suddenly the hundred-billion-dollar company is a scrappy underdog and a magazine with 40 employees is a Big Bad Monopolist.

The disruption con: why big tech’s favourite buzzword is nonsense (Guardian)

Quote

Adrian Daub’s What Tech Calls Thinking is a lively dismantling of the ideas that form the intellectual bedrock of Silicon Valley. Equally important to Silicon Valley’s world-altering innovation are the language and ideas it uses to explain and justify itself. And often, those fancy new ideas are simply old motifs playing dress-up in a hoodie. From the myth of dropping out to the war cry of “disruption,” Daub locates the Valley’s supposedly original, radical thinking in the ideas of Heidegger and Ayn Rand, the New Age Esalen Foundation in Big Sur, and American traditions from the tent revival to predestination. Written with verve and imagination, What Tech Calls Thinking is an intellectual refutation of Silicon Valley's ethos, pulling back the curtain on the self-aggrandizing myths the Valley tells about itself.

What Tech Calls Thinking: An Inquiry into the Intellectual Bedrock of Silicon Valley (Adrian Daub/FSG Originals)

Edited September 30, 2020 by dcom

[dcom]

Quote

In a post published on its site, Facebook addressed several concerns it has with the movie, covering topics like addiction, users being “the product,” its algorithms, data privacy, polarization, elections and misinformation.

“Rather than offer a nuanced look at technology, it gives a distorted view of how social media platforms work to create a convenient scapegoat for what are difficult and complex societal problems,” Facebook said.

It said the documentary sensationalizes social networks and provides a distorted view to how they work.

Facebook rebuts ‘The Social Dilemma,’ a popular Netflix documentary (CNBC)

[dcom]

Quote

The recent Netflix drama-documentary The Social Dilemma features a number of ex-Silicon Valley executives warning us about the practices of companies they worked for. Do you think we should be looking to these people for guidance about how to regulate the big tech firms?
The brilliant critic Maria Farrell calls them the “prodigal tech bros”. And she says that the real problem in terms of the prodigal son narrative is that the prodigal son is redeemed because he really suffers. However the suffering these sort of prodigal sons have experienced is just feeling sad.

So whose guidance should we be seeking?
Technologists have failed to listen to non-technologists. In technological circles, there’s a quantitative fallacy that if you can’t do maths on it, you can just ignore it. And so you just incinerate the qualitative elements and do maths on the dubious quantitative residue that remains. This is how you get physicists designing models for reopening American schools – because they completely fail to take on board the possibility that students might engage in, say, drunken eyeball-licking parties, which completely trips up the models.

Anthropologists have been warning us about this since the year dot, people like Danah Boyd, who was hired by Google and Intel, but they just ignored her. We could listen to people like her. And we could listen to the people who’ve been harmed by this stuff – we could get into their lived experience.

So ignore the prodigal tech bros?
One of the problems with The Social Dilemma is that it supposes that tech did what it claims it did – that these are actually such incredible geniuses that they figured out how to use machine learning to control minds. And that’s the problem – the mind control thing they designed to sell you fidget spinners got hijacked to make your uncle racist. But there’s another possibility, which is that their claims are rubbish. They just overpromised in their sales material, and that what actually happened with that growth of monopolies and corruption in the public sphere made people cynical, angry, bitter and violent. In which case the problem isn’t that their tools were misused. The problem is that the structures in which those tools were developed are intrinsically corrupt and corrupting.

Cory Doctorow: ‘Technologists have failed to listen to non-technologists’ (The Guardian)

[dcom]

Quote

The Prodigal Tech Bro is a similar story, about tech executives who experience a sort of religious awakening. They suddenly see their former employers as toxic, and reinvent themselves as experts on taming the tech giants. They were lost and are now found. They are warmly welcomed home to the center of our discourse with invitations to write opeds for major newspapers, for think tank funding, book deals and TED talks. These guys – and yes, they are all guys – are generally thoughtful and well-meaning, and I wish them well. But I question why they seize so much attention and are awarded scarce resources, and why they’re given not just a second chance, but also the mantle of moral and expert authority.

[...]

Allowing people who share responsibility for our tech dystopia to keep control of the narrative means we never get to the bottom of how and why we got here, and we artificially narrow the possibilities for where we go next. And centering people who were insiders before and claim to be leading the outsiders now doesn’t help the overall case for tech accountability. It just reinforces the industry’s toxic dynamic that some people are worth more than others, that power is its own justification.

The prodigal tech bro doesn’t want structural change. He is reassurance, not revolution. He’s invested in the status quo, if we can only restore the founders’ purity of intent. Sure, we got some things wrong, he says, but that’s because we were over-optimistic / moved too fast / have a growth mindset. Just put the engineers back in charge / refocus on the original mission / get marketing out of the c-suite. Government “needs to step up”, but just enough to level the playing field / tweak the incentives. Because the prodigal techbro is a moderate, centrist, regular guy. Dammit, he’s a Democrat. Those others who said years ago what he’s telling you right now? They’re troublemakers, disgruntled outsiders obsessed with scandal and grievance. He gets why you ignored them. Hey, he did, too. He knows you want to fix this stuff. But it’s complicated. It needs nuance. He knows you’ll listen to him. Dude, he’s just like you…

The Prodigal Techbro (Maria Farrell/The Conversationist)

Edited October 11, 2020 by dcom

[zlemflolia]

40 minutes ago, dcom said:

Cory Doctorow: ‘Technologists have failed to listen to non-technologists’ (The Guardian)

"Anyone who has ever fallen in love with technology knows the amount of control that it gives you. If you can express yourself well to a computer it will do exactly what you tell it to do perfectly, as many times as you want. Across the tech sector, there are a bunch of workers who are waking up and going: “How did I end up rationalising my love for technology and all the power it gives me to take away that power from other people?”"

hits pretty hard in the reals i have to say

Edited October 11, 2020 by cyanobacteria

[Candiru]

The Zuck is playing pocket pool to your cookout last weekend. To him, we are all the teens in Salo, tbh. 

[zlemflolia]

6 hours ago, Candiru said:

The Zuck is playing pocket pool to your cookout last weekend. To him, we are all the teens in Salo, tbh. 

i dont understand this post can you write it another way

[Candiru]

9 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

i dont understand this post can you write it another way

Mark Zuckerberg is fervently masturbating to your family reunion pictures, because he delights in the perversion his power affords him. Shortly afterwards, he will begin microdosing LSD to begin brainstorming new ways to turn the world into one giant Lord Of The Flies scenario before absconding in a helicopter for a full deep sea microbial skin peel, which is rather refreshing. 

[dingformung]

*masturbates fervently*

[chenGOD]

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

*masturbates fervently*

Is there any other way?

[hijexx]

20 hours ago, Candiru said:

Salo

Is this a movie I should watch or just pass? Known about it for a long time but for some reason just never watched it.

I watched Irreversible and it was hard to stomach the scene in the tunnel for me, a little too real. Won't watch that again.

[dcom]

Quote

EU targets Big Tech with ‘hit list’ facing tougher rules
Brussels broadens search for extra powers to curb power of digital platforms

-- Javier Espinoza in Brussels October 11, 2020

EU regulators are drawing up a “hit list” of up to 20 large internet companies, likely to include Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Apple, that will be subject to new and far more stringent rules aimed at curbing their market power.

Under the plans, large platforms that find themselves on the list will have to comply with tougher regulation than smaller competitors, according to people familiar with the discussions, including new rules that will force them to share data with rivals and an obligation to be more transparent on how they gather information.

The list will be compiled based on a number of criteria, including market share of revenues and number of users, meaning the likes of Facebook and Google are likely to be included. Those deemed to be so powerful that rivals cannot trade without using their platforms could also be added.

The move to gain new powers is part of a growing effort in Brussels to force big technology companies to change their business practices without a full investigation or any finding that they have broken existing laws.

It follows complaints that the current regulatory regime has resulted in weak and belated action, which has done little to foster competition.

The number of companies and the precise criteria for the list is still being discussed, but it is the latest indication of how serious the EU is about coming up with powers to limit the power of platforms seen as “too big to care”.

“The immense market power of these platforms is not good for competition,” said a person with intimate knowledge of the discussions.

The proposals, which are still being discussed among senior EU officials, could end up being part of new regulation aimed at diminishing the power of platforms that are perceived to be acting as gatekeepers.

As part of the powers, the EU is seeking to go beyond just fines, which often are seen as just the cost of doing business. Instead, Brussels wants to be able to move quickly to force the likes of Amazon and Apple to ensure they give access to competitors and that they share data with rivals.

In extreme circumstances, the EU will seek to address structural problems, by breaking up Big Tech, or by forcing companies to sell units if they are found to be behaving to the detriment of rivals.

The list will be heavily skewed towards Big Tech in the US, a move that will be seen as controversial and risks adding to friction between Washington and Brussels, according to people familiar with the discussions.

In a further sign of simmering trade tensions, Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU’s new trade chief, has told the US to prepare for additional levies on exports to Europe unless it withdraws punitive tariffs on more than $7bn of EU products.

A push for new rules and new powers in Brussels is set to face fierce opposition from the large dominant platforms, but political momentum is growing for the EU to regulate Big Tech.

The EU is also preparing draft proposals for an overhaul of the internet rules of the bloc, the first time such an exercise has been carried out in two decades. Proposals for the new Digital Services Act are expected in early December and they will seek to increase the responsibility of platforms when it comes to policing illegal content or products being sold online.

“The internet as we know it is being destroyed,” said another person with direct knowledge of Brussels plans. “Big platforms are invasive, they pay little tax and they destroy competition. This is not the internet we wanted.”

The push to curb Big Tech’s power goes beyond Brussels.

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority wants to have powers to scrutinise digital mergers that would often fall below the required thresholds for scrutiny.

A congressional report in the US said Big Tech has abused its market power, suggesting large platforms should restructure their businesses entirely.

EU targets Big Tech with ‘hit list’ facing tougher rules (Financial Times, paywalled, full article above)

[Candiru]

6 hours ago, Candiru said:

Mark Zuckerberg is fervently masturbating to your family reunion pictures, because he delights in the perversion his power affords him. Shortly afterwards, he will begin microdosing LSD to begin brainstorming new ways to turn the world into one giant Lord Of The Flies scenario before absconding in a helicopter for a full deep sea microbial skin peel, which is rather refreshing. 

I read an analysis of it at first which was really interesting and it sounded disturbing and extreme. When I watched it I thought it was a bit goofy and boring at times. 

[Nebraska]

EU targets Big Tech with ‘hit list’ facing tougher rules
Brussels broadens search for extra powers to curb power of digital platforms
-- Javier Espinoza in Brussels October 11, 2020
EU regulators are drawing up a “hit list” of up to 20 large internet companies, likely to include Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Apple, that will be subject to new and far more stringent rules aimed at curbing their market power.
Under the plans, large platforms that find themselves on the list will have to comply with tougher regulation than smaller competitors, according to people familiar with the discussions, including new rules that will force them to share data with rivals and an obligation to be more transparent on how they gather information.
The list will be compiled based on a number of criteria, including market share of revenues and number of users, meaning the likes of Facebook and Google are likely to be included. Those deemed to be so powerful that rivals cannot trade without using their platforms could also be added.
The move to gain new powers is part of a growing effort in Brussels to force big technology companies to change their business practices without a full investigation or any finding that they have broken existing laws.
It follows complaints that the current regulatory regime has resulted in weak and belated action, which has done little to foster competition.
The number of companies and the precise criteria for the list is still being discussed, but it is the latest indication of how serious the EU is about coming up with powers to limit the power of platforms seen as “too big to care”.
“The immense market power of these platforms is not good for competition,” said a person with intimate knowledge of the discussions.
The proposals, which are still being discussed among senior EU officials, could end up being part of new regulation aimed at diminishing the power of platforms that are perceived to be acting as gatekeepers.
As part of the powers, the EU is seeking to go beyond just fines, which often are seen as just the cost of doing business. Instead, Brussels wants to be able to move quickly to force the likes of Amazon and Apple to ensure they give access to competitors and that they share data with rivals.
In extreme circumstances, the EU will seek to address structural problems, by breaking up Big Tech, or by forcing companies to sell units if they are found to be behaving to the detriment of rivals.
The list will be heavily skewed towards Big Tech in the US, a move that will be seen as controversial and risks adding to friction between Washington and Brussels, according to people familiar with the discussions.
In a further sign of simmering trade tensions, Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU’s new trade chief, has told the US to prepare for additional levies on exports to Europe unless it withdraws punitive tariffs on more than $7bn of EU products.
A push for new rules and new powers in Brussels is set to face fierce opposition from the large dominant platforms, but political momentum is growing for the EU to regulate Big Tech.
The EU is also preparing draft proposals for an overhaul of the internet rules of the bloc, the first time such an exercise has been carried out in two decades. Proposals for the new Digital Services Act are expected in early December and they will seek to increase the responsibility of platforms when it comes to policing illegal content or products being sold online.
“The internet as we know it is being destroyed,” said another person with direct knowledge of Brussels plans. “Big platforms are invasive, they pay little tax and they destroy competition. This is not the internet we wanted.”
The push to curb Big Tech’s power goes beyond Brussels.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority wants to have powers to scrutinise digital mergers that would often fall below the required thresholds for scrutiny.
A congressional report in the US said Big Tech has abused its market power, suggesting large platforms should restructure their businesses entirely.

EU targets Big Tech with ‘hit list’ facing tougher rules (Financial Times, paywalled, full article above)
they just banned holocaust denial, so thats another freedom we lost

https://m.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112455086578451

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[dcom]

8 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

they just banned holocaust denial, so thats another freedom we lost

Poe's law is strong with this one.

[cwmbrancity]

3 hours ago, hijexx said:

Is this a movie I should watch or just pass? Known about it for a long time but for some reason just never watched it.

Yes. On acid.

[hijexx]

22 minutes ago, Nebraska said:

they just banned holocaust denial, so thats another freedom we los

[Candiru]

 

[omnii]

I gotta give it a "whack".

... 

[Nebraska]

On 10/12/2020 at 11:29 AM, Nebraska said:

they just banned holocaust denial, so thats another freedom we lost

https://m.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10112455086578451

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 

more freedoms out the window as today, FB banned anti-vaccination ads.

https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/supporting-public-health-experts-vaccine-efforts/

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, Nebraska said:

more freedoms out the window as today, FB banned anti-vaccination ads.

https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/supporting-public-health-experts-vaccine-efforts/

i think its a good move

we dont want anti-vaccination ads

i of course wish that facebook didnt exist and it was instead some sort of default-installed plugin on our decentralized cryptographically secure social media platform that had no ads and it was for posts instead

fuck facebook

Edited October 13, 2020 by cyanobacteria

[Nebraska]

On 10/13/2020 at 12:02 PM, Nebraska said:

more freedoms out the window as today, FB banned anti-vaccination ads.

https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/supporting-public-health-experts-vaccine-efforts/

FCC will now move towards regulating social media so another freedom on it's way out