Google's Selfish Ledger is an Unsettling Vision of Silicon Valley Social Engineering (theverge.com) 254
An anonymous reader shares a report: Google has built a multibillion-dollar business out of knowing everything about its users. Now, a video produced within Google and obtained by The Verge offers a stunningly ambitious and unsettling look at how some at the company envision using that information in the future. The video was made in late 2016 by Nick Foster, the head of design at X (formerly Google X), and shared internally within Google. It imagines a future of total data collection, where Google helps nudge users into alignment with their goals, custom-prints personalized devices to collect more data, and even guides the behavior of entire populations to solve global problems like poverty and disease.
Fermi's paradox (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the real problem: Utopian and Dystopian systems are going to use the same tools. The big divide between them will be motive and power. To illustrate, an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian. However, if the AI is programmed to consider the good of its creators above the good of its customers (individuals and the general society at large), this rapidly becomes Dystopian. The same is true if a political agenda outside of the consideration of individual/societal benefit is considered. And we have carefully avoided the notion of applying any generic rules to the development of AI.
We are in uncharted territory here, with private entities having this kind of information capabilities. It is nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle here, so we need to figure out how to control the genie, rather than it controlling us. As to how, I haven't a clue.
Re: (Score:3)
an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian.
I would suggest to you that even this level of choice is going to be largely an Illusion. The AI will simply give you a choice, one that it has identified the most likely decision you will make already (95% confidence level), the choice being an illusion of control, when the reality the AI doesn't really need your input, but asks just to be "nice".
Re: (Score:2)
an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian.
I would suggest to you that even this level of choice is going to be largely an Illusion. The AI will simply give you a choice, one that it has identified the most likely decision you will make already (95% confidence level), the choice being an illusion of control, when the reality the AI doesn't really need your input, but asks just to be "nice".
Because we know what happens when AI doesn't act "nice"...
As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth...
--The Architect
If the method works... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If the method works... (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because this was a thought experiment. This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.
Slashdot just loves them some controversial headlines and stories, so they conveniently left that out with their blurb.
Another non-story.
Re:If the method works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because this was a thought experiment.
That's irrelevant. The idea has been conceived and disseminated. The initial dissemination was among people with the power and the resources to make it a real-world experiment. Do you really Google doesn't have the arrogance, the hubris, and the power-lust to start implementing this?
This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.
They may "not plan on doing", but do they "plan on not doing"? Besides, to hear Google tell it, they planned to not be evil - and look at them now.
Another non-story.
Google has a history of at least trying out the wild shit their people dream up. And I'm pretty sure the insularity of Silly Valley's denizens renders many of them immune to the consideration that using the rest of as lab rats is in any way immoral or inappropriate. Even at that, this would be a non-story only if Google wasn't already fully capable of rolling out such a scheme in a short time frame.
Re:If the method works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because this was a thought experiment.
That's irrelevant. The idea has been conceived and disseminated. The initial dissemination was among people with the power and the resources to make it a real-world experiment. Do you really Google doesn't have the arrogance, the hubris, and the power-lust to start implementing this?
They have pretty much all the data they need to do this for some people. They have your search history, your email history, your SMS history, your phone calls and voicemails (google voice), your detailed location history, your purchase history, (google wallet) every photo you've taken in the past N years, all of your files in Google Drive, and more.
They know more about you than Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because this was a thought experiment. This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.
And your confidence in this arises from Google pinky-swearing to that effect after the video was leaked?
Re: (Score:2)
because of Seeber's Social Placebo Uncertainty Paradox: Letting the people know you are collecting data on them changes their response to the data.
Re: (Score:3)
1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
George Orwell was a visionary.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
People also forget it was about television (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He applied linear thinking and took it to the extreme to make a good story. But societies go through cycles. The tide turned in 2016 -- perhaps as a consequence of the 2008 crash -- where people have rejected, democratically speaking, the vision that had been offered to them, of which this is a part. Try as he might have, Schmidt couldn't help Hillary win.
Re: (Score:3)
While that's an optimistic thought, 2016 was not a rejection of totalitarianism or post modernism, merely a rejection of the most corrupt presidential candidate in a century. There's little evidence thus far that people are rejecting identity politics, which is the lever by which modern totalitarians move themselves into power.
Orwell, an ardent socialist, saw well the dangers socialism presented for descent into totalitarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that such a candidate was even offered as a choice in the first place was a direct reflection of the state we were in -- totalitarian-leaning people thought they could get away with it. If so then Hillary, endorsed by the likes of Schmidt, was part of the package that was rejected, which maybe includes identity politics as well. That's at least the rationalization for my optimism.
Also there was Brexit...
Re: (Score:2)
Warren Harding was 1920, you meant to say almost a century
Good point, if debatable as to the degree of corruption. Certainly comparable.
Unfortunately, despite Trump's rejection by a plurality, he still got into office, and is even now taking open bribes.
Interesting theory. Does it involve shape-shifting Reptoids?
Had a five minute conversation with the average vote recently?
Yes, and most of them seem to openly embrace the premise of identity politics. Plenty of exceptions, though.
Nope. Not Socialism.
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.
You should read more carefully.
The book's warning was about that.
Not about socialism.
Orwell has explicitly written that 1984, like Animal Farm, was about how a socialist government can fall to totalitarianism. Just as Animal Farm was a warning about the betrayal from within, as the revolutionaries fall to the lure of power, 1984 was a warning abo
Re: (Score:2)
The tools of socialism are the tools of totalitarianism. The fact that some Socialist states haven't reached that point is irrelevant. But once they do reach a certain state, the process is irreversible, and unstable.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd say that the tools of totalitarianism are the tools of socialism taken farther. E.g., Britain's panopticon and social media police are the tools of totalitarianism, but Britain was socialist for decades before things got that bad. Sure, though, merely a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There was also no subtlety in Google firing this person [newsweek.com]. Strange how none of you Damore cry babies ever criticize Google for that firing. Because I’m sure the lack of outrage has nothing to do with this other person’s political views.
Re: (Score:2)
"False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors."
Yes, the lack of outrage has nothing to do with this other person's political views.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There was nothing subtle in the firing of James Damore. Neither is the Censorship on Facebook "subtle".
FREEDOM TECHNOLOGIES:
+Jabber +YacY +ssh +scp +phpbb +irc
James Damore was an idiot. Your employer and coworkers don't give a fuck about your edgy opinions. They want to make as much money as possible, as easily as possible. If you get in the way of that, expect negative repercussions. Your workplace is not a debate club, social studies class, therapist's office or democracy. Shut up and do your job and things will likely work out fine.
Re:Really ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor white guys. The centuries of constant oppression they have faced must be unbearable.
Spotted the racist.
Less future more present (Score:2, Interesting)
Google and Youtube already "nudge users into alignment with their goals" by manipulating search results, pushing sites/producers with opinions they prefer and hiding those they disagree with.
I suppose 2018 is the future they were thinking about in 2016.
Subbtle difference (Score:2)
Google and Youtube already "nudge users into alignment with their goals"
In that context, *their goals* = Google's goals.
You know the "feelgood" piece at the end about solving poverty, disease and world peace.
So Google can justify what they're doing by deluding themselves it will lead to "greater good".
by manipulating search results, pushing sites/producers with opinions they prefer and hiding those they disagree with.
in your context *they prefer* and *they disagree* are the users :
- algorithms are optimized for one single target : bring more clicks in (because that's what makes more money going in by providing more eyeballs to sell to advertisers)
- and the machine "learning/AI/NN/whatever is p
Re: (Score:3)
Probably so. Probably also why I'm searching with bing more often now, too.
I remember the old days when google's search interface had an actual search language, with a bunch of operators that I could use to search for what I wanted. Almost none of that exists anymore, now instead of searching for what I want, I can only search for whatever google's interests are that share half the keywords. Weak sauce. Very weak sauce.
That they consider it an improvement just guarantees that they learn my preferences by le
Isn't that pretty much the story of things? (Score:5, Insightful)
Start with "don't be evil"
ends up with a terrifying Big Brother-y quasi police state* 'managing' everyone's behavior "for the public good, of course Mr Smith"
*you might say that Google is merely gathering data and at most 'nudging' behavior. I'd say that when Google can concatenate & save forever EVERYTHING YOU DO to a degree that would make FB and Cambridge Analytica (you know, the guys being publicly lynched for doing exactly this?) blush, and use that data against you in ways ranging from subtle to blatant including simply handing your data over to authorities, then yeah, I'm going to call that a quasi-police state whose 'public/private' partnership borders on Fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
Particularly Facebook behaving the way
Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? (Score:4, Interesting)
You forgot about the part where they data was used to the possible benefit of conservative politicians instead of for liberal objectives. I'm not sure that that wasn't what goaded some folks into being really upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say that when Google can concatenate & save forever EVERYTHING YOU DO to a degree that would make FB and Cambridge Analytica (you know, the guys being publicly lynched for doing exactly this?) blush, and use that data against you in ways ranging from subtle to blatant including simply handing your data over to authorities, then yeah, I'm going to call that a quasi-police state whose 'public/private' partnership borders on Fascism.
I'm actually concerned that people's data will be used against them to derive more than just a social score like China. Imagine if the Nazis had access to what religion, ethnicity, and political leanings of all within its borders who were tracked in real time - the damage that could be wrought would be far, far greater. There is the finnancial havoc you could wreak as well given the ability to effectively use this data. There needs to be more oversight and counterbalance to this because there is no putt
Re: Isn't that pretty much the story of things? (Score:2, Troll)
Imagine if the Nazis had access to what religion, ethnicity, and political leanings of all within its borders who were tracked in real time - the damage that could be wrought would be far, far greater.
Don't worry; social justice warriors would have taken to the streets demanding safe spaces for gypsies and homosexuals.
The Jews would have still been fucked though.
Genie CAN go back in the bottle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? All it would take is some legislation.
No, it wouldn't. First off the NSA (along with other US and foreign agencies) isn't going to listen as they were doing this before the patriot act, but more importantly companies will continue to do this around the world outside European or American influence. Data collection, storage, and processing is only getting easier through moores law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's objectionable when the Russians do it, it should be equally objectionable when Google does it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Their stated goal is to use this power to solve global poverty and disease. By any measure, that is not evil."
Nonsense. The devil is certainly in the implementation.
If one 'solved' poverty by killing all the poor people, it would CERTAINLY be evil.
If one 'solved' disease by eugenically breeding superhumans, it would pretty likely be evil AF.
So no, I don't buy your initial premise, nor most of the rest of your post.
People are MOST CERTAINLY entitled to be upset at losing agency; the premise of democracy is
Google Visioneyish Statement (Score:2)
What is the maximizing stockholder wealth justification for "solving global problems like poverty and disease"?
As much as tech companies may want to be a new religion, they aren't. The incentive models of capitalism support a limited scope of activity effectively.
At least Bill Gates is honest in this regard--charitable focus requires an organizational structure supporting that. Corporate virtue signaling and technological handwaving aren't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor diseased people do not buy or watch Google ads. It is in our selfish self-interest to uplift developing countries so as to create new markets where to sell our stuff, new products and services to buy off of them, add manpower to the global research effort or whatever lofty goal you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating "our" abstract interests with Google stockholder interests.
I'll leave aside the question of how specifically Google's data mining will "uplift" these countries. I'll even leave aside the question of how companies in general will do so.
At least until you give me a reason not to consider your position summarily refuted by actual history and practice, with one simple link. [nytimes.com]
The Marshall Plan actually "uplifted" countries devastated by World War Two. Companies did not volunteer to absorb these
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, nobody cares about America. The world is much better off today, with a lot less people living in poverty and cushy desk jobs for people who used to farm the land with medieval tools as recently as the 80s and 90s. Most of the world is thrilled about globalization. I myself made a pile of money as an online freelancer when I was younger.
In Portugal, my day job is launching web pages for the developing countries we once colonized... as part of that, I need to know where to host things and how the ne
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, nobody cares about America.
Didn't read past that, but you might want to look it up. ;)
Turns out, we're the most important country in the world, and even our enemies agree. You're just an idiot jousting with a windmill.
If you ever get internet access, check to see what exists outside your tiny country. There is a whole big world out there, and wherever you're from, your countries significance in the world is very small. Railing at clouds doesn't change that in any way; you probably have no idea that sort of more serious complaints peo
Re: (Score:2)
What is the maximizing stockholder wealth justification for "solving global problems like poverty and disease"?
If you can mitigate/fix/whatever disease, which makes workers less productive, and make poor workers more productive, generating more wealth for themselves and others, governments will pay for that technology.
Heck, simply knowing what the problem is gets you halfway to solving it. If the government is spending tons of money mitigating bird flu, which affects maybe a few dozen people a year, but, in aggregate, people miss hundreds of thousands of days of work from regular flu, then maybe some funds should sh
Re: (Score:2)
Heavily impoverished countries are generally countries where their governments would declare war on somebody trying to make their citizens lives better, not places that would pay to make their citizens lives better.
I guess this is how they're going to do it; idiots like you will get sites that explain these things at the top of your search results, and they can just increase the volume until you stop saying such stupid shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Reduced social welfare costs should result in less government growth and reduced or at least not increasing levels of taxation.
Lower or stable payroll taxes means reduced salary demands and higher profits?
I'm not saying this isn't a flawed argument (government reducing taxes, etc) but from an economics standpoint, reducing social welfare externalities results in less drag and deadweight losses.
There are probably other arguments, like turning impoverished people into Google customers which would be an expans
Re: (Score:2)
Only in a rich country with a strong system of civics.
In poor countries that is often not the case at all, and the ruling class doesn't care about things like "less drag and deadweight losses," instead their focus is on maximizing the divide between the rich and the poor, by making sure the poor have maximized social welfare externalities. People don't care about money, they care about power, and people from rich countries measure power by their money. Governments in poor countries often measure their power
Actually be evil? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, this is just some blah-blah by a person whose job at google actually just design.
Insidious and evil (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".
The point being, the republic was set up to aspire to higher goals than can be achieved by pure democracy alone. We have people in power who are not bound by the will of the people, they can vote their conscience based on what they think is right. We take guidance from a bunch of enlightened people 250 years ago who set up basic guidelines to do this.
The idea of a bunch of like-minded people getting together and trying to "nudge users into alignment with their goals" is the same thing, it's "two wolves and a sheep" writ large.
We're seeing this today with the changes in user policy. YouTube used to be a bastion of free speech, everything that wasn't explicitly illegal was allowed... until that changed, and you can no longer talk about guns, or have conservative views, or cast aspersions on certain races or religions. (But it's OK when those races or religions cast aspersions back.)
Their goals are well-meaning today so that people will get behind the efforts and help, tomorrow their goals may be different.
Even when you agree with their goals, not everyone agrees with their proposed solutions - and yet they still try to influence public debate. Climate change is one of these issues, where a lot of people would agree that it's a problem and something should be done, if only the solutions weren't politically motivated.
What they are proposing is control over social thought. Unlike PACs or advertising, it's done without oversight or transparency. We complain about PACs not having enough transparency, and not knowing who pays for political ads - are we going to allow Google to be similarly opaque?
Next election it won't be "Russians hacked the election", it'll be "Google hacked the election".
Nudging behaviour like this is insidious and evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Next election it won't be "Russians hacked the election", it'll be "Google hacked the election".
Next election?
What's interesting to me is that Google, Facebook, etc. have already been trying this. It's no secret who's side they have been on, and no doubt that they have been "nudging" (as blatantly as they could have? maybe not, but nudging for sure).
It may have worked, in 2012. It failed, in 2016. What interests me is why/how it failed.
Is Trump just The Mule [wikipedia.org] or something, a one time anomaly? Or are we more reliant against this stuff than previously thought?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally believe that we are resilient to this sort of manipulation. Humans are a naturally suspicious species, and these manipulations never seem to "feel right". For instance, my "feel" of the global warming debate:
OMG! The world is getting too hot! It's our fault! Let us have control!
Wait!? What!? CO2 is a trace element that has barely moved up, and we only have a small amount of accurate data composed of a few years over a limited area. Can we have a look at your data?
HELL NO!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their goals are well-meaning today so that people will get behind the efforts and help, tomorrow their goals may be different.
EXACTLY! This is what the SJW's asking for more government intervention never seem to grasp. Today's noble cause is tomorrow's tool of the oppressor/tyrant. Those who want to empower the government (and/or large corps with government's help) to effect social change refuse to understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the problem comes down to the transparency/visibility of the process. Open political debate depends on knowing who is proposing what, and being able to understand their motives. When the "nudging" and other pressures are
Democracy (Score:2)
There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".
That what representative democracy is. (And is huge chunk of the reasons why your system is so screwed in the US).
Meanwhile, direct democracy works. You should try this sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
We have it in Oregon, it works great. Oh, BTW, we're one of those United States. Many other States have direct democracy, too.
There aren't many other places in the world that have it at all, I doubt there is anyplace that does it better than Oregon.
Direct Democracy is an important idea, I'd encourage you to learn more about it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".
That what representative democracy is. (And is huge chunk of the reasons why your system is so screwed in the US).
Meanwhile, direct democracy works. You should try this sometimes.
I am pretty sure that direct democracy is 6,563,729 wolves and 5,235,973 sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
We have people in power who are not bound by the will of the people, they can vote their conscience
People that have a conscience do not rise to positions of power.
Re:Insidious and evil (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".
The old saying is from someone who doesn't understand game theory. The outcome of such a vote would be that the stronger wolf would be eaten. The weaker wolf knows that it would be dinner tomorrow if it eats the sheep, the sheep knows that it has a better chance of running away from just the weaker wolf than from either both wolves today or the stronger wolf tomorrow.
It's also from somebody who doesn't know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"The point being, the republic was set up to aspire to higher goals than can be achieved by pure democracy alone. We have people in power who are not bound by the will of the people, they can vote their conscience based on what they think is right. We take guidance from a bunch of enlightened people 250 years ago who set up basic guidelines to do this."
Good post; I would only append that the FF who wrote the constitution were *very* aware of this, and (tried, at least) wrote a constitution which was in ever
It's all fixable but we'd have to crack open (Score:2)
The problem is if we call a convention to fix the Constit
Re:BINGO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: BINGO (Score:2)
Because ideology often trumps self interest. It's like homosexuals still being Christian or Muslim, or poor/middle-class people voting against socialised healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
Because ideology often trumps self interest. It's like homosexuals still being Christian or Muslim, or poor/middle-class people voting against socialised healthcare.
Not great examples. Many Christian churches welcome homosexuals these days (most churches in liberal areas do), and socialized health care is not in the self-interest of most of the middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
So why has Bill Gates not gone onto politics according to your mantra? It has been sometime since he left Microsoft or perhaps he can be more effective with his Foundation with fighting against malaria etc.?
Possible answer (Score:2, Interesting)
Bit deeper then that. I don't know what group of people are driving it but I can describe it. The more I look at especially some of the "synergies" between laws in countries that would otherwise be completely opposite, the more it becomes obvious there has been a serious push for globalization. It's to the point we don't have one, but MANY draconian laws straight out of batshit crazy countries, being passed with little to no discussion. It's like we're being prepped for habitation by the "royal families".
I've been thinking about that, and have a possible answer.
For context, I started thinking about this when I heard that London is now 42% foreign born. (Here's info from 2011 [google.com].) England used to be predominately white and very conservative, but it's now peppered with no-go zones and full of foreign workers. Germany and Sweden are even worse, and are *still* importing refugees.
Why is this happening in Europe?
My best guess has to do with WWII, and the genocide of various peoples: Jews, but also Gypsies, Poles, A
Re:Possible answer (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that you think Sweden is full of "no-go zones" (or even London, for that matter) tells me that your opinions were already manufactured by Russian troll farms.
Psychohistory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Hari Seldon running Google now?
Meaning (Score:3)
It seems kinda scary that a big brother org could shape the environment of information so as to influence people's behaviour.
But then I remember that humans are not so simple. To us the world is not a mere stream of information, rather, it is a world of meanings which we create and organise, where meaning is within a context which is within a context and so on. Just think of a famous piece of art, and all its parodies. Consider fashion and how it changes. The way that people's aspirations and goals, their likes and dislikes, their moods and opinions, all flow in an ever-changing, re-created anew, stream of reactions and counter-reactions. Life is change. And the "facts", the "data" which tech people are so enamoured of, is only one half of reality. The other half is inter-subjective re-creative re-authored re-organising meaning-making. Today you love X and feel it is the best person or thing in the world, tomorrow you're bored with X. Show me an AI that can cope with that, and then I'll say you've passed some kind of fancy test. An AI that understands new ironies. What a joke.
Somehow reminds me of "The Circle" (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not 1:1 but some aspects like exploiting groupthink to "do good", "nudging" people to conformity etc. are common.
Screw you, Google (Score:2)
It imagines a future of total data collection, where Google helps nudge users into alignment with their goals, custom-prints personalized devices to collect more data, and even guides the behavior of entire populations to solve global problems like poverty and disease.
Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, Google, I neither need, want, or will allow you to 'guide my behavior', so how about you go fuck yourselves, you fucking fucks?
Mad? Yes. If shit like this doesn't make you mad, then there's something wrong with you.
You want to win this game, people? DON'T PLAY AT ALL. Dump Google, dump so-called 'social media', and take your lives back. You don't need anyone to 'guide your behavior'. Google and others need to stay out of our lives.
Don't use (Score:2)
Don't use their search engine any more, don't use any of their services, don't use any of their products, and block their trackers while web browsing.
I fail to see how they'll do anything with me.
Ash nazg (Score:2)
one search engine to find them
One search engine to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them
All about power (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowledge is power. As Google knows you better and better, they have more and more power over you. This video shows they're already considering how to exercise this power. This is the obvious next step for them (and, FWIW, I had already called it: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]).
Google, Facebook and the other data vampires really need to be stopped. The EU GDPR is a step in the right direction (though I, personally, would prefer both companies, and other privacy infringers, like Equifax, to be dismantled, or broken up). Unfortunately, the US government is already in Google and Facebook's pockets (it's not for nothing that Google is the largest corporate lobbyist in the USA), so I don't expect any useful legislative action.
Re: (Score:2)
submission yelp false alarm (Score:2)
How can I be reading Robert Sapolsky from 2017 (Behave) who is talking like Lamarckian epigenetics is still a thing, while a narrator from 2016 is saying it's not a thing?
Because Lamarckian epigenetics is still a thing in nematodes. It just hasn't been much demonstrated in mammals yet.
Whew! For half a second I was afraid that the hairiest Out of A
Re:Yeah, Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the 1970s they said that the United States of America would combine information and capitalism to create a paradise.
In fact they built a brutish hellhole.
Super successful (Score:3)
1.) Run your own little server behind your DSL Modem. Starts at $30, called Raspberry PI.
A littlebit under powered, but still good for many non intensive use.
(Been there, still doing that sometimes).
2.) Store your data on your private server. Control access/encipher via SSH/SCP.
Oh, common. It's 2018. at least use rsync.
(Also, if you want good resilience against damage/corruption, you'd want a base with a tad bit more sata ports, and running RAID5.
Just saying)
3.) Run your own discussion forums.
...but be prepared to not have the richness of interactions currently found on the Social Networking Site du jour/whatever Zuck has bought the most recently.
You'll basically have your mom' writing you a message, every
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate this so much... I wish I had mod points for ya.
I've been a web/software dev for almost 20 years... but I'm totally unqualified to run my own email server. It's not that I can't learn it, it's just that to do it RIGHT, and to truly certify that it's safe and secure (I tried running my own email once in the early 2000's and wound up getting blacklisted because I accidentally left relaying open) takes too much time and effort for the value. The same can be said about so many of these things... i
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so if I only want people who understand their basic choices and comprehend how their technology habits affect them personally, then idiots who think they need Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM) or Brandybrand(TM) in order to have friends will think I have no friends.
That impacts me how, exactly?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course. I have been modded down to oblivion whenever I have pointed it out, but this is sociopathic behavior, and we are training and indoctrinating kids with this sort of crap for decades now.
This country was formed to prevent precisely this, and to favor individual liberty over the "collective good", precisely because at some point, someone or some group will come along and attempt to define "collective good" for everyone else - which then has to be enforced at the point of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberalism/"progressivism"/socialism can only end in totaltarian behavior, it is part and parcel and the end game of any socialist activity.
Been saying this for a long time.
It's even my /. sig.
"Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce."
Google/FB/twatter/et al provide the surveillance state, the Feds provide the police state.
Fascism refined for the information age. It's an authoritarian's wet-dream.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This country was formed to prevent precisely this, and to favor individual liberty over the "collective good".
Actually the Constitution talks of having a balance between individual rights (the inalienable ones, although not universal), and the collective good, and that's entirely appropriate and sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
This is bullshit. To do any of this, you have to run a static IP, which is still prohbited by many ISPs for consumer accounts. Sure you can pay more for a business class service (more money for less speed, at least it is in my market) but your talk of 2 watts minimal cost is moot considering the additional cost of service. Running your own fileserver, discussion board, and jabber might be possible for you but impractical for most people; even those people in tech. And besides, who's going to sign in to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off you really shouldn't comment on something you have exactly zero understanding on when it comes to hosting. As spire3661 said, dynamic DNS services are a thing and have been around for some time. Takes about 5 seconds to google that and if someone runs anything like what the OP was suggesting, they will find that out very quickly.
Now, I will give you that it is highly impractical for everyone to run their own discussion boards, Jabber, etc. and it would totally defeat the purpose of half of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me that I have no understanding of this??? What is the DNS propagation time for dynamic DNS changes? What is the expected gap in coverage when your IP changes relative to your expected consumer audience? Do you actually run dynamic DNS or did you just google that to throw it in my face?
That stuff could be a one click install if someone took the time to actually do it.
Then why does hardly anyone take the time to actually do it?
You need to step out of your bubble for a minute and consider: What percentage of people on this planet (or your country of choice if you like)
Re: (Score:2)
You're telling me that I have no understanding of this??? What is the DNS propagation time for dynamic DNS changes? What is the expected gap in coverage when your IP changes relative to your expected consumer audience? Do you actually run dynamic DNS or did you just google that to throw it in my face?
Apparently not because again, it takes 5 fucking second to look this up and read that it has a propagation time of less than a minute: https://dyn.com/dns/ [dyn.com]
Given that the update is initiated from the client side in practice it is actually less most of the time. I have used it, colleagues and friends have used it, it is not that damn complicated. Stop acting like an ass because you got called out. I've implemented networking interfaces and equipment for MULTIPLE Fortune 500 customers so just shut up before
Re: (Score:2)
So you're telling me that DDNS propagates GLOBALLY in less than a minute? I understood that to be more like 24 hours (cite: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com])... so I stand corrected. The last time I used a dynamic DNS service was about 6-7 years ago, and it was miserably unreliable at that time. I'm glad to hear it's improved. But it's also not free. This issue like the others circles back to the pretense that this a cheap and easy solution, when it is neither.
I'm glad we both agree that regardless o
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but I wouldn't say that is a typical thing. In my experience people don't do that for free, but I'm not as involved in open source groups and such so my view could be distorted a bit.
Re:Gandalf took the Ring (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever learn how to use the internet, you should look up a map of the Bay Area and find out if Google is from San Francisco, or some other place.