Social media platforms have been given a “sweetheart deal,” according to Hawley, which includes “immunity from liability for illegal content posted by third parties.”
They were given special consideration, he said, because they promised to provide “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”
Went to Lunds. They had a sale: $1.99 on Coke 12-packs. Well! I bought one, the new Orange-Vanilla Dreamsicle flavor. LIMIT ONE PER DAY said a handwritten sign, because obviously people had been loading up. Drove south, decided I would check the other Lunds for the large paper bags. They had them! I also picked up another 12-pack, and I was thinking: this goes against the rules. I wonder if I can get away with this.
On the way out I noticed that the receipt did not give me the sale price; I went back. A manager asked: did you buy one earlier today?
“I did!” I said. “I’m sorry! I wasn’t trying to get away with anything. Well I guess I was.”
“The computer knows everything,” she said.
Doofus. If you’re going to sail close to the wind, pay cash. It leaves no footprints.
For a while there has been a subset of people concerned about Google’s privacy and antitrust issues, but now Google is eroding trust that its existing customers have in the company. That’s a huge problem. Google has significantly harmed its brand over the last few months, and I’m not even sure the company realizes it.
The whole “liking” and “sharing” model is just garbage. There is no effort and no quality control. In fact, it’s all geared to the reverse of quality control, with lowest common denominator targets, and click-bait, and things designed to generate an emotional response, often one of moral outrage.
What if live-streaming required a government permit, and videos could only be broadcast online after a seven-second delay? What if Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were treated like
traditional publishers, expected to vet every post, comment and image before they reached the public? Or like Boeing or Toyota, held responsible for the safety of their products and
the harm they cause?
Imagine what the Internet would look like if tech executives could be jailed for failing to censor hate and violence.
My continuing review of Shoshanna Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance CapitalismZuboff’s focus is the explosive growth of the invasive exploitation of metadata by large corporations like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. She is much less concerned with the advent of surveillance states, who she treats mainly as enablers of Big Data. I think Big Biz and Big State are in competition (cahoots?) and both exploit both our metadata and the CyberMob to advance their agendas. The value of Zuboff’s analysis is that she builds frameworks that describe and predict the behavior of both Big State and Big Biz. For example, in collecting metadata, the Biggies follow the simple dictum “more is better.” Zuboff calls this the extraction imperative. How do they get “more?” Through economies of scope: “…behavioral surplus must be vast, but it also must be varied.”
Expand the scope of data collection. Google Maps and Streetview anyone? How about that FitBit?
Expand the depth of data collection. Amazon tracks your purchases. In the future, the store freezer case doors will track your gaze with facial recognition displays.
Heck, I didn’t even realize that drunken online shopping was a thing. How naive of me. Of course, the Amazonians and Googleoids would never try to reinforce or exploit this behavior pattern, would they?
As an authoritarian regime with an abysmal human rights record, Cuba’s got an incentive to keep its citizens offline, and regularly harasses and arrests digital dissidents. Reporters Without Borders calls the nation an “Internet Enemy,” putting in the same list as North Korea, Syria, and Iran.
The censorship manifests itself in a really interesting way. While there’s not much actual site-level blocking, Cuba does surveil its citizens online.
Google just wants a piece of the action.
Smart speakers may snoop on family conversations. More than 4 in 10 parents of 6- to 8-year olds say their children use the assistants for homework help. OK, letting your kids be raised by robots may actually be a step up from having them raised by wolves their peers.
Smartphones and their ilk are the ultimate tools for pooling our ignorance. And pettiness. And intolerance.
There’s an epidemic of teenage loneliness. One obvious culprit is the overuse of social media. A 2017 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that “young adults with high” social media use “seem to feel more socially isolated than their counterparts” who use social media less
This is the first in a continuing series of “callouts” detailing the onslaught of the ubiquitous surveillance and behavioral influence state. Remember, whether the state seizes industry, or industry seizes the state, the result is still fascism.
Volvo wants to spy on you while you drive. Two thoughts immediately came to mind: (1) Isn’t Volvo owned by those “social credit” folks, the Chinese? and (2) I find it impossible to utter the phrase hot-rod Volvo without laughing.
Social media is pretty much a blight on society, a timewasting temptation to reveal way too much information that should be kept private. The rise of cyberbullying and online outrage mobs are symptoms of what I call the Cyber Sturmabteilung, the Internet incarnations of san-coulottes, lynch mobs, Red Guards, Khmer Rouge. The only way to win that game is to not play.
Documents obtained by Motherboard from Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) through an access to information request show that at least two provinces—Ontario and Saskatchewan—maintain a “Risk-driven Tracking Database” that is used to amass highly sensitive information about people’s lives. …
Information about people believed to be “at risk” of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced hospitalization or arrest.
Sounds faintly Orwellian, the cops using healthcare records to decide who gets a knock on their door, based on an algorithm. What could go wrong, eh?
This is where ubiquitous surveillance by the state (directly or via contractors) eventually leads. This is why you shouldn’t trust the folks who want to dispossess you of your car; their motives are not what they professs.
Tip from the Instapundit, who predicts some Chinese people will find their social credit card inoperable in the bread lines of the near future.