Removing regulations on financial institutions also improves economic efficiency. It also results in stuff like say, the 2008 housing collapse, or the failure of entire countries (see: Greece).
Arguing against privacy protection by claiming its for the benefit of our economy is just rehashing the "free market vs regulated market" argument. Sure, economic efficiency improves. Our wellbeing? Not always.
Is ad tracking pervasiveness the same as locking factory workers inside a burning building? Probably not. But we learned well from that mistake almost a century ago. We'll learn from this one too.
These seem like complete non-sequiters, what does ad tracking have to do with mispriced insurance on mortgage-backed securities? How will ad tracking cause the economy to collapse? It seems like you are just bringing up an unrelated traumatic event from the past to scare people. I read that exotic mortgages are making a comeback - maybe congress should focus on that instead of grilling tech CEOs about advertising.
I see where I wasn't clear in addressing your point--I am not trying to equate ad tracking with securities fraud or workplace ethics disasters, I am comparing their role in shaping our current behaviors and perspectives.
In general, we didn't foresee the consequences of derivative markets for mortgage backed securities until it was too late, even though some raised concerns. Now we're very well aware, enacting regulations to hopefully prevent it in the future, as well as provide clear channels for recovery and compensation for damages if it does.
In general, we didn't foresee the consequence of unregulated treatment for employees until it was too late, even though some raised concerns. Now we're very well aware, enacting regulations to hopefully prevent it in the future, as well as provide clear channels for recovery and compensation for damages if it does.
Comparing that to the tracking market today, we have effectively zero regulation and zero ability for recovery and compensation. We know the tracking market is so pervasive that meaningful living/working today requires submitting yourself to this. We also have articles like this one demonstrating clear concerns.
The only thing missing is an understanding of the consequences. We can't ever know the scope of the consequences until they've happened. We can however make predictions (both good and bad). It may be just fine, it may not.
Should we take steps now to mitigate the possible bad outcomes? Or should we gamble and let the consequences happen to us?
The same argument goes for most civic debate.
I don't know what a healthy social and regulatory relationship with the tech looks like. I don't believe anyone does yet. I do know that discussing it like we are now improves our understanding of its complexities, and that's always good.
Hope this makes sense.
Concerning the remark about congress--they're fully capable of addressing both. No reason for an either/or.
I agree, it’s important to consider the possible harms. When we come up with specific tangible harms, it’s worth writing legislation targeted to address those issues.
However, I’d also consider that there is an infite array of possible risks to address, and we are likely to be biased towards looking into the ones that are related to things we are paying the most attention to.
Due to the financial success of the tech giants, and specifically the shifting of ad spend from newspapers to tech companies, it seems to me we are likely thinking about the dangers of ad tracking too much, rather than too little. The media companies have unfortunately suffered from the success of tech, so it’s not surprising they would be on guard for problems the industry might cause. And Congress, of course, will use both the carrot and the stick to get their piece of the action in the form of campaign contributions.
We have a known-known slow-motion disaster happening right in front of us, that has already seriously damaged world we live on, and is projected to do much worse. That danger is coming from an industry that has had a lot more time to form stronger influence-trading bonds with the powers that be. I feel like we’re all being distracted with a dog-and-pony show when people are walking around scared about ad tracking when the Earth is burning. Maybe if the tech companies can stay at the top of the heap for a long time spending money buying Congress, loyalties will shift enough for the government to be willing to do what’s needed to put the reigns on extractive energy interests and solve humanity’s #1 problem (it pains me to suggest that buying Congress is ever a good thing, but I’m trying to be optimistic in the face of what seems like a huge disaster).
I find it somewhat amusing this is even something we discuss--that there are "right" and "wrong" ad blockers is such a twisted re-framing of our right to personal privacy as default.
(I'm not indemnifying you at all, just find the concept itself fascinating).
For anyone still holding onto the belief they can break free of being tracked and sold and still remain functional in modern life, I offer you a challenge: For one month, do everything in your power to avoid being tracked. Take it as far as you can.
A year ago I attempted this by seeing what exactly I would need to do just to simply build my own cell phone, just to call, which did not allow any kind of tracking. Every layer you step through, from components to software to the telecom infrastructure itself has some finger in the pie. For the first time that stoner-ism "it's the SYSTEM, man" began to take a concrete form, like discovering some invisible forces just under the surface, governing our behavior. That's when I pulled the plug for my own sanity.
How it is we not only accepted this, but allow an entire market to exist buying and selling our personal lives (of which of course we ourselves do not profit directly from), still astounds me.
Keeping your life private is no longer the default mode. It's now more like going to the gym: it requires continuous drive and effort. Most don't have the time or the resources to even think about personal privacy, let alone take some kind of meaningful action.
This is great, I think I'm going to explain it using your method from now on.
Edit: I love that there's a segment of people in the QM community approaching these "very serious" thought experiments like Schrodinger's Cat (as the classic example), instead using absurdism to produce equivalent but blatantly ridiculous results. Like the Surrealist reactionary art movement but with the often insane results QM produces. Sometimes I think string theorists need a group kind of like this too.
My favorite of these types of bizarro QM communities is that of the "holographic fractal" universe. Nassim Haramein[1] being one of the popular figures of this movement. If you're willing to sift through the mysticism, the r/holofractal subreddit has some interesting ideas to chew on during an otherwise dull lunch break.[2]
The remark on the Aharonov post-selection is weird coming from Aaronson's usual hard adherence to known physics - postselection is relevant in the quantum world only. For Aaronson to twist it into an argument of cosmology seems markedly out of character.
Will second this, Red Mars (and the good parts of the second two in the trilogy) do a fantastic job of working through scenarios of both the sociopolitical and technical challenges we may face as the era of Mars exploration begins.
The general premise of the series is: If you were sent over to Mars with a group of others, who is there to stop you all from creating your own vision for the place instead, if armed with the tools to make it happen? If you have the capability to make your own world as you want it, would you obey the orders of those all the way on earth, or would you make the world in your own image? And what do you do if you choose to craft your mars in one way but others in the group disagree and have the same motivation and are armed with the same tools for their vision instead?
Each character in the series represents and carries out the different possibilities to these questions, and you see the consequences play out over hundreds of years.
The counter from Sax Russell in Red Mars to this exact debate, straight from the book:
> "The beauty of Mars exists in the human mind. Without the human presence it is just a collection of atoms, no different than any other random speck of matter in the universe. It’s we who understand it, and we who give it meaning. […] The lack of life here, and the lack of any finding in fifty years of the SETI program, indicates that life is rare, and intelligent life even rarer. And yet the whole meaning of the universe, its beauty, is contained in the consciousness of intelligent life. We are the consciousness of the universe, and our job is to spread that around, to go look at things, to live everywhere we can. […] If there are lakes, or forests, or glaciers, how does that diminish Mars’s beauty? I don’t think it does. I think it only enhances it. It adds life, the most beautiful system of all." - Kim Stanley Robinson, Red Mars
Cool! Do you have any plans to track historical changes of geospacial areas? What reference frame are you using for labeling areas? (places America considers countries vs what China considers, for example)
Thanks! Tracking historical changes is a great idea, but this requires perfect data from day one, doesn't it? Otherwise, how will you differentiate between historic changes and mere factual/technical corrections? Thus, right now, there are no plans to track this. But we're open to ideas and contributions on how to do this.
Regarding the reference frame, that's definitely an issue. Right now, it follows the souce's guidelines (see "SOURCE.md"), which means "boundaries of sovereign states according to defacto status. We show who actually controls the situation on the ground. For instance, we show China and Taiwan as two separate states. But we show Palestine as part of Israel."
Nice work! A few months ago I did the same and built a small tool to reverse-geocode the coordinates to see a) if all of its doable and b) how accurate it was (https://github.com/mileszim/yaktrak)
I'm impressed with how far you were able to go; for a such a simple app, Yik Yak has many questionable areas in its implementation
Arguing against privacy protection by claiming its for the benefit of our economy is just rehashing the "free market vs regulated market" argument. Sure, economic efficiency improves. Our wellbeing? Not always.
Is ad tracking pervasiveness the same as locking factory workers inside a burning building? Probably not. But we learned well from that mistake almost a century ago. We'll learn from this one too.