The neoliberal ideology that the GDPR is based on is catastrophic. There’s some necessary stuff in there, but the whole general approach to the problem is disastrous.
To me, it’s evidence that the demise of the traditional left isn’t just bad for workers but everyone.
I’ve learned that a fancy term for the problem is “neoliberal responsibilization”. When someone wants to track you, they need to your informed consent. It’s your individual responsibility to make a good choice. That may seem like a nice idea, at first. But it’s not how we do most other things. EG food safety. You can’t use just anything as a food additive as long as you just write it on the label for “informed consent”. No ordinary person has the time, knowledge, or wits to make such decisions. For the ordinary person, this is just needless bureaucracy, like clicking away cookie banners.
Knowledge about yourself is made into something almost like private property. And then - seems to be the idea - when people make their own choices without pesky government interference, great things happen. That doesn’t work with property either.
There’s no concern for society or progress. I am worried about tracking data being used to manipulate people. They consented, so no problem? If you are gathering anonymous data you don’t even need to ask anyone. If the data pertains to a whole group of people, there is not supposed to be a problem?
Say, you belong to a vulnerable group; ethnic minority, women who have aborted, gay, trans, … One wouldn’t want a list of people who belong to such a group. But, say you want to open a shop with special foodstuffs or clothes that caters to such a group, how are you going to reach them? Not having such lists would imply a disadvantage for any minority. Saying that everyone can make their own choice in the matter is not a solution. It’s just pretending the problem does not exist.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that complaints about the GDPR come mostly from businesses. Usually, “neoliberal responsibilization” is to the benefit of the powerful. Foisting the lone individual with responsibility is a divide and conquer tactic. One shouldn’t dismiss their criticism because of the hypocrisy. The revenue of a business becomes income for most of us, and we wouldn’t want to do without their products either.
Eventually, I favor the food safety model of regulation. The focus should be on a strong regulatory body, staffed with professionals, who actually have a chance of uncovering or foreseeing harm. It should be tasked with taking a big picture view, not only with enabling individuals to guard their (mostly) petty secrets. (This does exist to some degree in the GDPR).
Yeah, I understand and I actually agree. The GDPR is not doing enough, yet it’s the best effort we have made. I usually see criticism from the other side, eg. “regulation bad”.
If it were up to me, I’d just say that the surveillance capitalism industry should be outlawed completely, treated the same as slave and arms trading. It’s actively making the world worse for most people.
surveillance capitalism industry should be outlawed completely
Can I ask what you hope to achieve with that?
It would fail to address many of the problems I see with the whole industry. EG you could still do AB testing because that’s not surveillance. At the same time, it would have negative consequences. That data can be used for good or evil. I think the potential for good is greater, even as it stands now.
It is already being used for evil. I just don’t see a reality where you can trust the government or companies with data like that. I would love if that reality existed though.
Thinking about it, I would say that for answering “does this demographic at large like or need this” shaped questions can be answered by using relatively small samples without identifying every single individual in the group. If you want to help a group, that’s enough, since people in the group really want your thing to happen, they will come forward. If you want to do something to everyone in the group against their will, that becomes harder.
I think I just value being able to hide my affiliations to certain groups, I want to be able to get out of my bubble and not have a label everywhere I go.
If you want to help a group, that’s enough, since people in the group really want your thing to happen, they will come forward.
That’s the thing. The information will still be there to abuse. To develop my earlier example: Say you want to offer kosher foodstuffs. If you can’t “target” your potential customers with google ads, you have to use facebook groups, reddit subs, maybe certain websites and the like. Most ads would be mainstream stuff targeted to the majority population (especially the part with the disposable income). Minorities would be excluded in a sense.
The mainstream would not be affected but it would become harder for companies to cater to minority interests. Not just ethnic minorities but also people with niche interests. Minorities without existing organization (like the mentioned groups, subs, …) would be impossible to reach (maybe recent immigrants). It would be harder to serve such minority communities, commercially or not. As organizations catering to minorities are typically owned and run by members of these minorities, they would take the hit on both ends.
You can probably guess why I chose kosher foodstuffs as an example. Nazi Germany could have used the same information to hunt down Jews. So definitely potential for good and evil here. Nazi Germany managed without the internet. Unless a group functions on a clandestine cell system, the information has to be somewhere. I can’t imagine a scenario, where an evil government couldn’t get to that information relatively easily. So, I believe the damage to the community would outweigh the small gain in safety.
One also has to think of people who don’t know that they are part of a group. An idea I have is that it should be possible to diagnose some conditions or diseases from internet activity; EG ADHD or Parkinson. It’s creepy to think that one could be surveilled for that purpose but I think it would be social good to do something with that.
I think I just value being able to hide my affiliations to certain groups, I want to be able to get out of my bubble and not have a label everywhere I go.
Same here. Plus (for me) it’s just a bad feeling when you are watched. But I don’t think it’s rational or healthy. I don’t think we should give power to these feelings. It’s like the fear of public speaking. Many (most?) people have it and it’s rarely a problem to give in. But when you start structuring your life around avoiding something, you have a problem.
Look to LGBTQ. The power move is coming out. That still can have negative consequences in many places. It certainly received hostile reactions anywhere, even in the west, less than 50 years ago. Hiding was rational. Coming out was a sacrifice that took great courage. It still is so for many. Openness was the way to more freedom, not better secrecy. I’m sure that LGBTQ people who live openly, where they can, are living better, healthier lives; through less privacy rather than more.
What am I worried about in comparison? What if all the porn videos I ever watched were made public? The idea is probably terrifying to just about anyone. But who has really any reason to fear anything?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have data protection regulation. Some data, like payment data, will be abused if leaked. Some data may be abused by extremists. And even where there is no rational reason to worry, privacy is still a natural human need. I want my bathroom stall to have a door like anyone else. But if I have to go in the open it’s no big deal. I don’t want my porn preferences public, either. It’s just that I don’t think that aspect of surveillance capitalism deserves more than a passing consideration.
Neoliberalism has always been conservatism with more tact. Neoliberals pretend to be a bit progressive to attract support, but neoliberalism is not progressive at all. It is profit-driven and nothing else. Neoliberalism serves corporations, not people.
They aren’t wrong that this law isn’t fit for modern times, but not in the way they mean. It needs to be e expanded into a GDPR type thing.
The neoliberal ideology that the GDPR is based on is catastrophic. There’s some necessary stuff in there, but the whole general approach to the problem is disastrous.
To me, it’s evidence that the demise of the traditional left isn’t just bad for workers but everyone.
Could you expand on that?
I’ve learned that a fancy term for the problem is “neoliberal responsibilization”. When someone wants to track you, they need to your informed consent. It’s your individual responsibility to make a good choice. That may seem like a nice idea, at first. But it’s not how we do most other things. EG food safety. You can’t use just anything as a food additive as long as you just write it on the label for “informed consent”. No ordinary person has the time, knowledge, or wits to make such decisions. For the ordinary person, this is just needless bureaucracy, like clicking away cookie banners.
Knowledge about yourself is made into something almost like private property. And then - seems to be the idea - when people make their own choices without pesky government interference, great things happen. That doesn’t work with property either.
There’s no concern for society or progress. I am worried about tracking data being used to manipulate people. They consented, so no problem? If you are gathering anonymous data you don’t even need to ask anyone. If the data pertains to a whole group of people, there is not supposed to be a problem?
Say, you belong to a vulnerable group; ethnic minority, women who have aborted, gay, trans, … One wouldn’t want a list of people who belong to such a group. But, say you want to open a shop with special foodstuffs or clothes that caters to such a group, how are you going to reach them? Not having such lists would imply a disadvantage for any minority. Saying that everyone can make their own choice in the matter is not a solution. It’s just pretending the problem does not exist.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that complaints about the GDPR come mostly from businesses. Usually, “neoliberal responsibilization” is to the benefit of the powerful. Foisting the lone individual with responsibility is a divide and conquer tactic. One shouldn’t dismiss their criticism because of the hypocrisy. The revenue of a business becomes income for most of us, and we wouldn’t want to do without their products either.
Eventually, I favor the food safety model of regulation. The focus should be on a strong regulatory body, staffed with professionals, who actually have a chance of uncovering or foreseeing harm. It should be tasked with taking a big picture view, not only with enabling individuals to guard their (mostly) petty secrets. (This does exist to some degree in the GDPR).
Yeah, I understand and I actually agree. The GDPR is not doing enough, yet it’s the best effort we have made. I usually see criticism from the other side, eg. “regulation bad”.
If it were up to me, I’d just say that the surveillance capitalism industry should be outlawed completely, treated the same as slave and arms trading. It’s actively making the world worse for most people.
Can I ask what you hope to achieve with that?
It would fail to address many of the problems I see with the whole industry. EG you could still do AB testing because that’s not surveillance. At the same time, it would have negative consequences. That data can be used for good or evil. I think the potential for good is greater, even as it stands now.
It is already being used for evil. I just don’t see a reality where you can trust the government or companies with data like that. I would love if that reality existed though.
Thinking about it, I would say that for answering “does this demographic at large like or need this” shaped questions can be answered by using relatively small samples without identifying every single individual in the group. If you want to help a group, that’s enough, since people in the group really want your thing to happen, they will come forward. If you want to do something to everyone in the group against their will, that becomes harder.
I think I just value being able to hide my affiliations to certain groups, I want to be able to get out of my bubble and not have a label everywhere I go.
That’s the thing. The information will still be there to abuse. To develop my earlier example: Say you want to offer kosher foodstuffs. If you can’t “target” your potential customers with google ads, you have to use facebook groups, reddit subs, maybe certain websites and the like. Most ads would be mainstream stuff targeted to the majority population (especially the part with the disposable income). Minorities would be excluded in a sense.
The mainstream would not be affected but it would become harder for companies to cater to minority interests. Not just ethnic minorities but also people with niche interests. Minorities without existing organization (like the mentioned groups, subs, …) would be impossible to reach (maybe recent immigrants). It would be harder to serve such minority communities, commercially or not. As organizations catering to minorities are typically owned and run by members of these minorities, they would take the hit on both ends.
You can probably guess why I chose kosher foodstuffs as an example. Nazi Germany could have used the same information to hunt down Jews. So definitely potential for good and evil here. Nazi Germany managed without the internet. Unless a group functions on a clandestine cell system, the information has to be somewhere. I can’t imagine a scenario, where an evil government couldn’t get to that information relatively easily. So, I believe the damage to the community would outweigh the small gain in safety.
One also has to think of people who don’t know that they are part of a group. An idea I have is that it should be possible to diagnose some conditions or diseases from internet activity; EG ADHD or Parkinson. It’s creepy to think that one could be surveilled for that purpose but I think it would be social good to do something with that.
Same here. Plus (for me) it’s just a bad feeling when you are watched. But I don’t think it’s rational or healthy. I don’t think we should give power to these feelings. It’s like the fear of public speaking. Many (most?) people have it and it’s rarely a problem to give in. But when you start structuring your life around avoiding something, you have a problem.
Look to LGBTQ. The power move is coming out. That still can have negative consequences in many places. It certainly received hostile reactions anywhere, even in the west, less than 50 years ago. Hiding was rational. Coming out was a sacrifice that took great courage. It still is so for many. Openness was the way to more freedom, not better secrecy. I’m sure that LGBTQ people who live openly, where they can, are living better, healthier lives; through less privacy rather than more.
What am I worried about in comparison? What if all the porn videos I ever watched were made public? The idea is probably terrifying to just about anyone. But who has really any reason to fear anything?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have data protection regulation. Some data, like payment data, will be abused if leaked. Some data may be abused by extremists. And even where there is no rational reason to worry, privacy is still a natural human need. I want my bathroom stall to have a door like anyone else. But if I have to go in the open it’s no big deal. I don’t want my porn preferences public, either. It’s just that I don’t think that aspect of surveillance capitalism deserves more than a passing consideration.
Neoliberalism has always been conservatism with more tact. Neoliberals pretend to be a bit progressive to attract support, but neoliberalism is not progressive at all. It is profit-driven and nothing else. Neoliberalism serves corporations, not people.
Not sure we are talking about the same thing? https://gdpr-info.eu/