Last week Amnesty International published a report about the online platforms of the leading surveillance giants – see my brief post about it @ Find News.
What I find
particularly signficant about the news is not the recommendations for public
policy, but rather the recognition of the free markets that there are now two
(2) surveillance sherrifs in town – just about a decade ago, the online
surveillance market was completely dominated by one (1) single surveillance
monopoly power. That monopolist company still rules the Internet, but now at
least most people realize that Google is no longer the only game in town.
Nonetheless,
most fools on the Internet still don’t understand how foolish they
obviously are.
Innumerable
fools – among them the billions of suckers and leading stalwart, public
companies – continue to sign up and give their private data freely in exchange
for worthless garbage. The platforms they sign up for are a convoluted mess of
smoke-and-mirrors that are reminiscent of a Kafka-esque machine-in-a-box, run
by some Dr. Seuss character ready, willing and able to sell „stars upon thars“
to anyone prepared to cough up a little (and in some cases a lot of) cash.
The magic
machinery promises to deliver results.
Western
civilization has been here before. The results were: The Protestant Reformation
and The French Revolution. In case you’re having difficulty connecting the dots
– the story doesn’t end well for the Roman Catholic Church (even though it
still seems like they’re doing OK today).
Another
result was Gutenberg’s invention of the Printing Press – yet this was probably
at least as much a result of the humanistic attitudes developing in Renaissance
Italy… perhaps a century (or more) earlier. Another result of the Printing
Press (besides The Protestant Reformation) was the birth of The Scientific
Method, which in turn resulted in The Industrial Revolution, which led to
further economic development … and finally: here we are!
Most of the
significant technological development over the past 5 centuries are built upon
a strong foundation of open and transparent information. Why would any rational
human being ignore this obvious fact, and instead invest their entire future in
a clandestine organization which promises better results brought to you by
a secret formula?
Your guess
is as good as mine! 😉
Posted in freezine
|
Tagged big data, data, development, Facebook, fool, fools, free market, Google, governance, historical, history, market, marketing, online marketing, policy, privacy, promotion, promotional, promotions, propaganda, rational, rationality, recommendations, regulation, retard media, secret, sucker, suckers, surveillance, technological, technology
|
A guy named Edward Snowden was
interviewed on the Joe Rogan Experience recently, and here is
something he said:
This is the context: You say you know, and — you know, let’s put it the other way: maybe you do know. Maybe you are an academic researcher, maybe you’re a technological specialist, maybe you’re just someone who reads all of the reporting and you actually know. You can’t prove it, but you know this is going on. But that’s the thing in a democracy: the distance between speculation and fact. The distance between what you know and what you can prove to everybody else in the country is everything in our model of government — because what you know doesn’t matter; what matters is what we all know … and the only way we can all know it is if someone can prove it, if you can prove it … and if you don’t have the evidence you can’t prove it.
JRE #1368 1:51:50 – 1:52:35
Could we please sit back for a moment
and ponder that suggestion in the context of science and the
scientific method? Science can’t prove anything, but what Mr. Snowden
is suggesting is that evidence can — and that it’s the only
thing that can. I realize that many scientists as well as
numerous lawyers may very well shake their heads and scoff at such a
simplistic confusion of the term “evidence” from two
completely different fields, two completely different traditions, two
vastly separated realms of knowledge.
Yet what about the millions of men and women in the streets? What does the twitter universe tweet out across the world ad nauseam? Facts, evidence, and insurmountable floods of gossip — wrongdoing, rightdoing, likes, dislikes, regurgitation of suppositions, and whatnot other similar processed foods for thought.
We live in a land plagued with schizophrenia: on the one hand modern scientists maintain that nothing in the universe can ever be proven, but on the other hand modern journalists provide reams of evidence on a daily basis to prove to the public some facts as undeniable. This daily digest of tidbit proofs is leading to data flooding and causing catastrophic psychological indigestion for the countless global masses.
Is it possible in this day and age to reconcile these opposite world views, to bring about a little hope for coherence in our data and media diet? Why don’t we presume innocence before bombing the world to smithereens? Why can’t we acknowledge that we don’t know? Why not refute the notion of undeniability (is that even a word — how about “incontestability”)? Is there in fact no such thing as a self-evident proof?
Posted in freezine
|
Tagged big data, data, deniability, deniable, Edward Snowden, evidence, fact, facts, factual, false, gossip, information technology, journalism, journalist, language, mass media, natural language, proof, proofs, propaganda, prove, skepticism, speculation, true, undeniability, undeniable
|
A friend of mine recently mentioned he has back-ordered “On Bullshit” (by Harry Frankfurt) and I thought “oh neat – maybe I can borrow it sometime for a day or two”… but then I realized something.
Bullshit is
not rare or special or in any way particular. It is widespread. Everywhere you
look, you can see bullshit converging in on you. I am no more interested in
studying bullshit than I am in investigating the tons of junk and/or fecal
matter that might arrive at any number of dumps on a daily basis across the
planet. I don’t care about the meaningless 99%, I want to know what makes the
1% especially meaningful.
My gut feeling tells me that in order to cut the crap a person must care about something in particular. I was trained by the Strunk & White school of thought which dictated that words must be chosen wisely and also with both precision and accuracy. Rationality is a very surgical matter, and errors are simply unacceptable.
This reminds me of another thought I recently had whilst wallowing through yet another quagmire of apparently endless streams of text: if you want to write something meaningful, then the meaning you want to write down is enough. I don’t need to know whether it’s your birthday or whether something else happened – just tell me what you want me to know or think or feel or whatever.
Posted in freezine
|
Tagged ad, ads, advertising, bullshit, coherence, coherent, cohesion, communicate, communication, content, context, English, false, falshood, idea, ideas, information, information retrieval, language, lie, lies, lying, meaning, meaningful, meaningless, media, message, messages, messaging, natural language, propaganda, rational, rational media, rationality, search, true, truth
|
In the following, I understand the Internet as a massive text connected by many participants conversing with one another. Parts of the text are in close connection, and the discussion can be viewed as heated insofar as the sub-texts reference each other in some way (links are merely one example of such cross-references). Other parts of the text are fairly isolated, hardly discussed, rarely (if ever) referenced. I want to argue that the former parts are “well formed” in the sense that they follow Grice (1975)’s cooperative principle, and that the latter seem to evidence a sort of prejudice (performed by the disengaged participants) — which I hope to be able to elucidate more clearly.
Before I embark on this little adventure, let me ask you to consider two somewhat complementary attitudes people commonly choose between when they are confronted with conversational situations. These are usually referred to as “feelings” — and in order to simplify, I will portray them as if they were simply logically diametrically opposed … whereas I guess most situations involve a wide variety of factors each varying in shades of gray rather than simple binary black versus white, one versus zero. Let’s just call them trust and distrust, and perhaps we can ascribe to elements of any situation as trustworthy versus distrustworthy.
Next, let me introduce another scale — ranging from uncertainty (self-doubt) to certainty (self-confidence).
Together, these two factors of prejudice (in other words: preliminary evaluations of other-trustworthiness and self-confidence) crucially impact our judgment of whether or not to engage in conversations, discussions, to voice our own opinions, whether online or offline.
As we probably all know, the world is not as simple as a reduction to two factors governing the course of all conversations. For example: How does it happen that a person comes to fall on this end or that end of either scale? No doubt a person’s identity is influenced by a wide variety of group affiliations and/or social mores, norms and similar contextual cues which push and pull them into some sort of category, whether left or right, wrong or fixed, up or down, in or out with mainstream groupings. One of the most detailed investigations of the vast complexity and multiplicity woven into the social fabric is the seminal work by Berger and Luckmann titled “The Social Construction of Reality”.
While I would probably be the first to admit the above approach is a huge oversimplification of something as complex as all of human interactions on a global scale, I do feel the time is ripe for us to admit that the way we have approached the issue thus far has been so plagued with falsehoods and downright failures, that we cannot afford ourselves to continue down this path. In an extreme “doomsday” scenario, we might face nuclear war, runaway global warming, etc. all hidden behind “fake news” propaganda spread by robots gone amok. In other words, continuing this way could be tantamount to mass suicide, annihilation of the human race, and perhaps even all life on the planet. Following Pascal, rather than asking ourselves whether there is a meaning to life, I also venture to ask whether we can afford to deny life has any meaning whatsoever — lest we be wrong.
If I am so sure that failing to act could very well lead to total annihilation, then what do I propose is required to save ourselves from our own demise?
First and foremost, I propose we give up the fantasy of a simplistic true-or-false type binary logic that usually leads to the development of “Weapons of Math Destruction”. That, in my humble opinion, would be a good first step.
What ought to follow next might be a realization that there are infinite directions any discussion might lead (rather than a simplistic “pro” vs. “contra”). I could echo Wittgenstein’s insight that the limits of directions are the limits of our language — and in this age of devotion to ones and zeros, we can perhaps find some solace in the notion of a vocabulary of more than just two cases.
Once we have tested the waters and begun to move forewards toward the vast horizons available to us, we may begin to understand the vast multi-dimensionality of reality — for example including happy events, sad events, dull events, exciting events and many many more possibilities. Some phenomena may be closely linked, other factors may be mutually orthogonal in a wide variety of different ways. Most will probably be neither diametrically opposed nor completely aligned — the interconnections will usually be interwoven in varying degrees, and the resulting complexity will be difficult to grasp simply. Slowly but surely we will again become familiar with the notion of “subject expertise”, which in our current era of brute force machinistic algorithms has become so direly neglected.
If all goes well, we might be able to start wondering again, to experience amazement, to become dazzled with the precious secrets of life and living, to cherish the mysterious and puzzling evidences of fleeting existence, and so on.
Tags:
propaganda, rational media,
language, natural language,
algorithm, algorithms, algorithmic,
big data, data, research, science,
quantitative, qualitative,
AI, artificial intelligence,
Posted in freezine
|
Tagged AI, algorithm, algorithmic, algorithms, artificial intelligence, big data, data, language, natural language, propaganda, qualitative, quantitative, rational media, research, science
|