21–30 of 49 posts
Here 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Except that government is really just another company, much bigger and often less accountable, plus it can make its own rules.
There is nothing fundamentally different between a government and a powerful company. They both suffer from the same problems, and succumb to the same evils. If this weren't the case, then we wouldn't need unions for government workers. Governments also don't have competition driving them to increase efficiency or improve their service to "customers".
If the government were in charge, the Internet would probably still look BBS's from the early 80s.
There is definitely a role for government to help create and agree on International standards, and to create regulations to protect people, but pretending that handing this stuff over to them would not be a total train wreck in one way or another is naive, in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Let governments develop the software, and keep companies away from our data." Except that government is really just another company, much bigger and often less accountable, plus it can make its own rules. There is nothing fundamentally different between a government and a powerful company. They both suffer from the same problems, and succumb to the same evils. If this weren't the case, then we wouldn't need unions f…
Did you read my second paragraph/line? The government built the internet as it exists now (minus the corporate junk).
I 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?
If a kid starts using a chromebook in elementary school (sometimes as young as kindergarten), they are more inclined to use google’s products later. They don’t even get the opportunity to make a conscious choice in their default tech platform, and google might not be the best choice for them. A kindergartener shouldn’t have to think about the privacy implications of their tech choices in my opinion, so maybe the defa…
Although I agree it should be, how does one engineer things such that an ethical but less profitable software provider has the leverage to beat less ethical but more profitable providers at selling their products/services?
Software has existed for grading and primary classrooms since the early 2000s. The software was awful, and expensive. When you look at Microsoft's new Office 365 offerings for schools...it makes me pretty enthusiastic for the future. I don't see this as a race to the bottom at all. Though I can see some problems with ecosystem lock-ins. But, US schools have long been teaching for the past, Microsoft and Google's new…
Software has existed for grading and primary classrooms since the early 2000s. The software was awful, and expensive. When you look at Microsoft's new Office 365 offerings for schools...it makes me pretty enthusiastic for the future. I don't see this as a race to the bottom at all. Though I can see some problems with ecosystem lock-ins. But, US schools have long been teaching for the past, Microsoft and Google's new…
I think we can agree that building quality CRUD apps has become much more straightforward in the last several years (which could explain the improved quality of grading apps), but there are many ethical questions around data collection, user-engagement, etc. that extend far beyond basic tooling that existed 20 years ago.
This feels like an extension of the overarching debate around social media in general, which Tristan Harris also criticizes regularly.
I 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?
If a kid starts using a chromebook in elementary school (sometimes as young as kindergarten), they are more inclined to use google’s products later. They don’t even get the opportunity to make a conscious choice in their default tech platform, and google might not be the best choice for them. A kindergartener shouldn’t have to think about the privacy implications of their tech choices in my opinion, so maybe the defa…
Big tech is a race to the bottom in general.
I 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 deci…
Unless your community has explicitly passed bonds earmarked for school district tech purchases, you’re not paying extra taxes for this. The district is making the decision to use existing funds for tech purchases rather than spending that money on something else. If you don’t agree with this allocation of funds, you are more than welcome to attend a school board meeting to voice your opinion.