I would agree, but the core concern is valid and hard to deal with. I’m not convinced private enterprise is more benign than governmental bureaus with big data.
Also, the NSA and such must like having as few sources as possible to tap into so I doubt the data will be spread out. Then there are privacy conciderations everywhere.
I found it more substantive than I expected from the headline, although it’s definitely still a policy proposal, yeah. Morozov is sort of straddling a line between academia and punditry that I think ultimately ends up being punditry, although better than most pundits.
I guess the question that Morozov constantly asks is whether you can truly separate the technical from the political. I don’t think this distinction really exists.
So in a world where nobody has any big-data power, this world is perfectly fine. When somebody invented and implemented a big-data system, suddenly the world is in great jeopardy since now there is ‘inequality’ in the world?
And he then invokes Georgism, which is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. Georgism deals with space, something which has always existed. Nobody created the Earth, nobody created that lithium deposit in the ground, nobody created that rich easily exploited oil deposit or that natural habour which is situated so close to an area with excellent climate and water supply resulting in large population. The people who enrich themselves from these fruits of the Earth did so via force, they used force to claim lands and its inheritance for themselves. Georgism simply says that you are entitled to your own labour, but the Earthen inheritance belongs to all humans equally, thus if you want to benefit from rich mineral deposit, you need to pay everybody their share of that inheritance, while you are paid for the labour of extracting said deposit.
Big data system wasn’t already here Earth, then somebody stumbled upon it then activated it and made themselves rich. People laboured to create it and these people ought to be entitled to its benefits.
Additionally, space is inherent to existence. You have to stand on a piece of stand and occupy some space. You do not have to have access to big-data infrastructure. Most of humanity never did for thousands of years and they lived fine.
The arguments that data belong to everybody is also false. Information pertaining to a person belongs to that person, sure. But these big-data guys obtained that data fairly. They offer you the ability to search the entire internet, if you are willing to tell them what you want to see. They offer you the ability to buy any book, if you are willing to tell them what you want to buy. The exchange of data is implicit to the transaction. Whether or not they should be able to run those data into their AI mega-system is worthy of discussion. But the claim that the data set is an infrastructural good that belongs to all is completely false. Each data piece belongs to an individual person. If somebody took the time and effort to gather up all those pieces into a useful whole, you are not entitled to claim the result for yourselves because part of that data came from you.
This way, citizens and popular institutions can ensure that companies do not hold us hostage, imposing fees for using services that we ourselves have helped to produce.
Holding somebody hostage requires use of force to coerce somebody.
And the fee has already been paid, it’s the incentive they gave you to help them produce that something.
This whole thing is just standard socialist rationalisation. They figure out a way to consider something an injustice so they can give themselves cause to seize that said something for “the benefits of all”. With some light seasoning of language butchery of course.
This submission is maybe a bit too policy/political wonk, given the source and lack of substantive technical content.
I would agree, but the core concern is valid and hard to deal with. I’m not convinced private enterprise is more benign than governmental bureaus with big data.
Also, the NSA and such must like having as few sources as possible to tap into so I doubt the data will be spread out. Then there are privacy conciderations everywhere.
I found it more substantive than I expected from the headline, although it’s definitely still a policy proposal, yeah. Morozov is sort of straddling a line between academia and punditry that I think ultimately ends up being punditry, although better than most pundits.
I guess the question that Morozov constantly asks is whether you can truly separate the technical from the political. I don’t think this distinction really exists.
Has everyone forgotten that Netflix did this and was roasted alive for publishing people’s secret data?
Ugh.
So in a world where nobody has any big-data power, this world is perfectly fine. When somebody invented and implemented a big-data system, suddenly the world is in great jeopardy since now there is ‘inequality’ in the world?
And he then invokes Georgism, which is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. Georgism deals with space, something which has always existed. Nobody created the Earth, nobody created that lithium deposit in the ground, nobody created that rich easily exploited oil deposit or that natural habour which is situated so close to an area with excellent climate and water supply resulting in large population. The people who enrich themselves from these fruits of the Earth did so via force, they used force to claim lands and its inheritance for themselves. Georgism simply says that you are entitled to your own labour, but the Earthen inheritance belongs to all humans equally, thus if you want to benefit from rich mineral deposit, you need to pay everybody their share of that inheritance, while you are paid for the labour of extracting said deposit.
Big data system wasn’t already here Earth, then somebody stumbled upon it then activated it and made themselves rich. People laboured to create it and these people ought to be entitled to its benefits.
Additionally, space is inherent to existence. You have to stand on a piece of stand and occupy some space. You do not have to have access to big-data infrastructure. Most of humanity never did for thousands of years and they lived fine.
The arguments that data belong to everybody is also false. Information pertaining to a person belongs to that person, sure. But these big-data guys obtained that data fairly. They offer you the ability to search the entire internet, if you are willing to tell them what you want to see. They offer you the ability to buy any book, if you are willing to tell them what you want to buy. The exchange of data is implicit to the transaction. Whether or not they should be able to run those data into their AI mega-system is worthy of discussion. But the claim that the data set is an infrastructural good that belongs to all is completely false. Each data piece belongs to an individual person. If somebody took the time and effort to gather up all those pieces into a useful whole, you are not entitled to claim the result for yourselves because part of that data came from you.
Holding somebody hostage requires use of force to coerce somebody.
And the fee has already been paid, it’s the incentive they gave you to help them produce that something.
This whole thing is just standard socialist rationalisation. They figure out a way to consider something an injustice so they can give themselves cause to seize that said something for “the benefits of all”. With some light seasoning of language butchery of course.