Interesting comparison to the food industry's race to the bottom, only to be supplanted at the top by retails such as Trader Joe's. Could Facebook's addictive algorithms eventually be supplanted by something more wholesome? The difference between the food industry and social media is that a single person can switch grocery stores on a whim, but social media platform migration requires a crowd.
Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
11–20 of 49 posts
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#12Big tech is a race to the bottom in general.
I think such statement is hazardous. What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system? Small actors could not do that.
Traditionally governments used to be responsible for such projects.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think such statement is hazardous. What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system? Small actors could not do that.
Why do we need to go to Mars? Edit: I realize it’s an unpopular question here, but other than it being cool - why do we need a Mars colony?
Quaid told us to.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#14I can see how forcing kids onto FB is a major issue, but the article seemed to imply the same was true for other Big Tech EDU platforms (AFAIK the main ones being Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams for Education) Do the same issues exist in these platforms?
So, if your child goes to a school which has "gone Google", personal information about your student is sent to Google without your consent, and their sole path to success depends on interacting with and sending more data to Google. Students are often required to purchase[1], carry, and use Google-controlled hardware daily as part of their routine.
The student has no choice (and no chance at privacy), because the decision was made for them by a school administrator who was excited about getting $100 laptops in bulk.
It's hard to imagine a more exciting situation to be in if you're Google or Microsoft: You have guaranteed customers who literally are required to buy their products. They're forced to buy in, year after year. And the further the buy-in, the further a school system has invested into Google or Microsoft's education platform, the less ability they have to pivot, since the devices they bought are locked to those platforms, the software they're using is running on those platforms' cloud servers, their curriculum is tied to those platforms, etc.
I think the pox here we need to deal with is vertical integration. We need to put an end to the concept of a single company selling you hardware, providing the software, and locking you in on services.
A fun similar racket is body cams: Taser will give a police department free body cams for every officer, so, you know, nobody has an excuse not to have body cams, as far as the public sees. But those body cams only work with their cloud service (which isn't free), and thanks to the handy fact that evidence has to be retained for many years, Taser can effectively make it impossible to stop subscribing once a department signs up.
[1]The school may or may not purchase it for your student, but you paid for it in your taxes anyways.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think such statement is hazardous. What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system? Small actors could not do that.
Traditionally governments used to be responsible for such projects.
Exactly. We still need companies, but just to provide the hardware. Let governments develop the software, and keep companies away from our data.
This is how it worked in the early days of the internet, when DARPA and universities developed the internet protocols, and used commercially available hardware to run their software.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#16Interesting comparison to the food industry's race to the bottom, only to be supplanted at the top by retails such as Trader Joe's. Could Facebook's addictive algorithms eventually be supplanted by something more wholesome? The difference between the food industry and social media is that a single person can switch grocery stores on a whim, but social media platform migration requires a crowd.
Facebook can easily be a dumpster fire, but I've found ways to get a lot of value out of it.
First off, by not letting myself get dragged into bad behavior when provoked, which is hard, when it comes to talking about controversial topics, but primarily by focusing on single topic groups that keep a tight rein on topics of discussion... in other words, rules like "No politics or religion, etc." or "We are here because we like "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and not to hate on J.J. Abrams", etc.
Even fandom-based groups can be ugly, but by looking for groups where the focus is on the positive rather than the negative, great discussion and even debate can be had without having things degenerate to YouTube comments level. Some of these groups will even have an "entrance exam" asking you a trivia question or for your opinion on the topic so that you must demonstrate you actually know something about what the group discusses, and aren't just there to throw grenades.
I think this is the way people can make good use of the fact that "everyone" is on Facebook. It allows you to create your own little clubhouse, and as with real clubs, some are good and some are bad, but you can look for the good ones and leave the bad ones behind.
tl;dr On Facebook, private groups can be very beneficial.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#17Big tech is a race to the bottom in general.
Big everything is a race to the bottom. The trick is to find your niche.
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think such statement is hazardous. What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system? Small actors could not do that.
Why do we need to go to Mars? Edit: I realize it’s an unpopular question here, but other than it being cool - why do we need a Mars colony?
Why do we need anything?
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think such statement is hazardous. What if you need to build maps for all the world? What if you want to go to Mars? What if you want to build a payment system? Small actors could not do that.
Why do we need to go to Mars? Edit: I realize it’s an unpopular question here, but other than it being cool - why do we need a Mars colony?
[deleted]
Re: Former Google Design Ethicist: Big Tech in Schools Is Race to the Bottom (2018)
#20Here that same Google design ethicist explains in detail how technology hijacks your mind [1]. TL;DR: Hijack 1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices. Ask yourself: What’s not on the menu?, Why am I being given these options and not others? Do I know the menu provider’s goals? Is this menu empowering for my original need, or are the choices actually a distraction? Hijack 2: Make apps behave like Slot Machi…
Re: Hijack 2 This is huge in mobile apps. Loot creates, "packs", etc. which means every end result doesn't have a fixed cost, but an "Expected" cost. I.e. if you want a certain item, you don't know how many times you have to buy a $3 pack to get it. You know you would pay $15 for it, though. So you start pulling that lever, hoping you'll get it. It's gambling, essentially. Literally a slot machines where you put $3 i…
Yes, it does seem to be gambling indeed. Legislation should catch up with this kind of tech and clearly label some of its aspects as gambling and therefore not suitable for children and teens.