Comment by stephantul
21 days ago
This has bean a long time coming. This is a stark reminder that you should consider who the future stewards of whatever you are building might be.
We built a vast surveillance network under the guise of servings ads and making money, and lost track of how this power could be abused by an entity not aligned with our own values.
Don't lump me in that "we". I did no such thing. I know exactly how it could be abused and have spent 12 years intentionally not working for companies that perpetuate it.
Well I guess I mean the pubic in general. I also don’t necessarily mean willfully creating technology that can be abused.
For example, we all stood by when we let Twitter and other US-based social media become the main way politicians communicate with the public. This has, in my opinion, had disastrous consequences on how they communicate and actively blocks politicians from achieving consensus.
This is to say that you don’t need to have actively worked on something.
I think that expecting the public to reason through the myriad n-order effects that were going to happen from the whiplash of technology in the last 30 years is a little much.
However, I think a lot of people in tech could and did see those consequences coming and were pretty vocal about it. So, I don't think we all did stand by, we exercised what limited power we had. I don't want to seem accusatory here and I don't mean it harshly, but maybe you just didn't see the folks who have talked about problems like this.
We also as individuals [without billions] have fairly limited capacity to directly act against these things. I donate a fair bit to the EFF for instance and I've sent outreach to representatives multiple times over the years for specific bills and when its possible I vote against surveillance.
3 replies →
We are all very impressed, I assure you.
Going by the upvotes I have generally yes people do seem to think so. It's only weird folks like you and the other guy that seem to have a problem.
It's exactly why I don't do more because I really don't want to be associated with people like you folks.
4 replies →
Good for you
What are you doing to organize around that?
Or is it just “I decided to leave so my hands are clean” self adoration?
Passive resistance is still resistance.
It's the gateway to any sympathetic contingency.
4 replies →
From day one everyone who worked on these ad-tech surveillance systems knew they had the capability for abuse. They were built to come as close as possible to the legal limits of surveillance and in several notable cases crossed that line. This isn't a surprise to anyone
The way I understand it, which may be dated: is that if it's automated or robotic it doesn't qualify as an "unreasonable search or seizure".
Or if it's a third party. The government is allowed to hire corporate contractors that don't obey the constitution.
1 reply →
There was a narrative here earlier that I'd rather trust Google/Apple with my data than any other company or any government. The end result is the same in the end. When it comes to privacy, the only thing that works is zero trust.
[dead]
It was always intended to be used that way, the programmatic advertising industry is a product of US Nat Sec.