Jump to content

Surveillance Capitalism


D.A.F.C

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I think you've picked me up wrong. I'm not praising the current holders of power in government for their transparency or accountability, I'm endorsing the way our parliament elects people. The proportional representation system we use gives a fairer outlook on voter opinion and makes it easier for us to shape fairer policies, compared with the FPTP system. If we went independent I'd like to see more accountability placed on politicians. I didn't mean the current holders of power were doing a great job or that they would even be desirable in an independent Scotland.

You did compare them to Westminster though which I disagree with. 

Generally speaking I agree with much of your subsequent post though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stormzy said:

You did compare them to Westminster though which I disagree with. 

Generally speaking I agree with much of your subsequent post though.

Aye, in my opinion things run better up here than they do in Westminster. MSPs actually turn up for a start. 

That's fair enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

This might be a ridiculously stupid question, but why can't we monetise our data? If Google want to track me and use the data I give them, I want paid, I don't want free use of Google Maps. I should be able to invoice these c***s every time they collect some info from me. 

Also - @Stormzy you seem disagree with what I said previously and simultaneously agree with DAFC, who was pretty much agreeing with me. I'm happy to debate.

The trouble with monetising your data is that it's not an exclusive good, like physical goods. So amazon having it won't stop google getting it from them or a third party for less than they'll pay you. So you'd need a legal framework that gives you ownership and the ability to exploit that and then digital rights management to enforce that ownership. 

Firms dealing with data for hundreds of millions of users can afford the contracts and the drm. I'd guess most people's data isn't worth more than three figures in total, individually, which would make the lawyers fees and software prohibitive. 

So you'd need collective action of some sort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

The trouble with monetising your data is that it's not an exclusive good, like physical goods. So amazon having it won't stop google getting it from them or a third party for less than they'll pay you. So you'd need a legal framework that gives you ownership and the ability to exploit that and then digital rights management to enforce that ownership. 

Firms dealing with data for hundreds of millions of users can afford the contracts and the drm. I'd guess most people's data isn't worth more than three figures in total, individually, which would make the lawyers fees and software prohibitive. 

So you'd need collective action of some sort. 

Aye, I figured it would be a nightmare. It's pish though, suhin' needs dun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the book last year. She does a very good job of describing the history of the rise of the surveillance firms (Google and Facebook basically with Microsoft jumping on the bandwagon) and their activities. 

The most important part of the book as I remember it is about behaviour modification and the application of  theories of behavioural psychologist BF Skinner to mould social media users into the types of consumers (or voters) that their customers want. Facebook have admitted to doing mass experiments where they have tried to force certain emotions on users. 

The reason that the book is called Surveillance Capitalism is that Zuboff believes that activities of Silicon Valley corporations are somehow a b*****d offspring of capitalism rather than part of the logical progression of existing  capitalism. That's obviously nonsense cope to justify her fairly right wing liberal political position but she makes strong arguments about why these corporations need to be regulated and the dangers of allowing them to continue to define the limits of their own activities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, hk blues said:

Fair enough for those living in countries like the UK but much of what you've described doesn't apply to a large proportion of the world's population - including where I am now.  In fact, what you've described doesn't even necessarily apply to everyone in the UK!  

Yeah, I thought I said as much, but it applies to more people and countries than it ever has before and the proportion excluded is declining rapidly. The UK and many other countries have been sliding back a little since 2008 and conditions for the poorest have dropped into a totally unacceptable level. Our socio-economic model doesn't work for everyone, but next door there are countries with only slightly different systems and approaches that have effectively eradicated poverty. It's not the whole model that's the problem, it's our application of it. We have it dialled up too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The reason that the book is called Surveillance Capitalism is that Zuboff believes that activities of Silicon Valley corporations are somehow a b*****d offspring of capitalism rather than part of the logical progression of existing  capitalism. That's obviously nonsense cope to justify her fairly right wing liberal political position but she makes strong arguments about why these corporations need to be regulated and the dangers of allowing them to continue to define the limits of their own activities. 

Silicon Valley has basically invented something of the scale of the printing press or the high street. It will fundamentally change the world from here on, in ways we can't yet fully imagine. Our legislators were almost all born and educated after it was created and they're well behind what this thing is and what we need to do about it. Commerce, politics, free speech, privacy, media, travel, family relationships, the speed and spread of new ideas, workplaces, education, it's all changed and it will take us a while to catch up with it. These are still the very early days of the information age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Yeah, I thought I said as much, but it applies to more people and countries than it ever has before and the proportion excluded is declining rapidly. The UK and many other countries have been sliding back a little since 2008 and conditions for the poorest have dropped into a totally unacceptable level. Our socio-economic model doesn't work for everyone, but next door there are countries with only slightly different systems and approaches that have effectively eradicated poverty. It's not the whole model that's the problem, it's our application of it. We have it dialled up too high.

There is only really Norway who run a fully social democratic system now and the basis of it is their wealth fund which now owns 1.5% of global stocks and shares.

Social democracy in Norway is now funded by exploitation everywhere else in the world. It's 21st century manifestation isn't something which can be replicated by other nations.

Edited by Detournement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Moonster said:

This might be a ridiculously stupid question, but why can't we monetise our data? If Google want to track me and use the data I give them, I want paid, I don't want free use of Google Maps. I should be able to invoice these c***s every time they collect some info from me. 

This is an idea propose by economist Mark Blyth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ArabAuslander said:

Splitting up the big tech and big data firms is the most important thing for me, separating AWS from Amazon, YouTube from Google and WhatsApp from Facebook would be a start.

This is an actual sensible comment. There is currently a lot of motivation from the US right and left to do this. Normally Germany is about the only country in the world with good over site on these kind of trends but the US right is feeling really hurt by big tech, while the liberal wing of the left is pretty motivated on the issue. 

Breaking up Amazon has precedents like with  Standard Oil and Bell.

There has been a lot of handwaving and vague speculation. Its not really worth digging into that as those doing so are largely bored and looking for something to soap box over. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It goes without saying that the 'Freedom App' is a higher stage of surveillance capitalism.

Jeremy Hunt gave a speech years ago about it being vital that British workers compete with Chinese workers. The reality is who the f**k wants to do that so the solution is to bring in a Chinese style social credit system to modify behaviour and discipline workers so they increase productivity and profits for capitalists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 23/02/2021 at 18:04, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

Absolutely ashamed that none of the das have been on to say "Div... Selling data... Hot tub" 

It would be interesting to know the rough value of a persons data though. Without wanting Div to publicly discuss his financial figures I would be keen to know rough estimates around a website which as popular as this and what it breaks down to for each user in terms of what advertisers pay.

There will at some stage be some sort of law suit against someone like Amazon with something along the lines of a royalties claim for an individual’s data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/02/2021 at 23:31, GordonS said:

Is there any evidence for this other than that it would be a good way to do it if someone were doing it?

All too often I see people not only infer motive from everything, but portray that inference as evidence in itself. If so then fine, I'll watch and read further, but if not then it does fall into the tinfoil hat territory. The gateway to that is "this is the kind of thing that bad actors have done in the past so I think that's what's happening here." That's not really how things work.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/21/google-urban-cities-planning-data

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s the difference between what Facebook etc do and tv or tabloids used to do? A tv ad on the past may have reached a third of the population in one hit. The Sun may have influenced a big chunk of the population. Isn’t social media advertising just picking up from here? I started smoking a certain brand of ciggies as my favourite racing driver had them emblazoned on his car. I had a favourite lager as I liked the ads as a kid. These were quite harmful forms of advertising long before social media came along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shandon Par Decorator said:

What’s the difference between what Facebook etc do and tv or tabloids used to do? A tv ad on the past may have reached a third of the population in one hit. The Sun may have influenced a big chunk of the population. Isn’t social media advertising just picking up from here? I started smoking a certain brand of ciggies as my favourite racing driver had them emblazoned on his car. I had a favourite lager as I liked the ads as a kid. These were quite harmful forms of advertising long before social media came along. 

You smoked John Players Specials and drank Skol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shandon Par Decorator said:

What’s the difference between what Facebook etc do and tv or tabloids used to do? A tv ad on the past may have reached a third of the population in one hit. The Sun may have influenced a big chunk of the population. Isn’t social media advertising just picking up from here? I started smoking a certain brand of ciggies as my favourite racing driver had them emblazoned on his car. I had a favourite lager as I liked the ads as a kid. These were quite harmful forms of advertising long before social media came along. 

I was at a talk given by Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, and he gave a fair analogy on the problems of this. In the past people “invited” a trusted source into your house to give you the news, for example the BBC. This relied on there being a fair degree of journalistic standards etc., but you were essentially able to turn on and off this tap of news and information and it only came from a trusted source. Contrast that to now where we are bombarded at all times with the 24 hour news cycle, presented to you by literally anyone. Pair this with the biggest data mining operation and you’ve now got a bombardment of media, generally hyper targeted towards you and your interests, along with the associated advertising etc. Even potentially more harmful is the shadow advertising we now get, where you’re unaware that your behaviour is being manipulated and being advertised to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the issue not that modern advertising has direct access to your data to try and specifically target products towards you whereas in the past they just had to make guesses as to what shite people want to buy. It does feel insidious when you mention something or somewhere and it shows up in your searches. I haven't done anything more than a couple of preliminary Google searches for the place I'm moving to and now I'm bombarded with adverts for living there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...