Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
So this isn't a compelling argument because it sounds outlandish and the implications (while serious) are indirect
Every major power, and some companies, have population simulations. It's not that hard to build one - we've been using them for decades, and they start yielding useful results even when they're pretty simple. Individuals are complex, but populations can be boiled down with statistics pretty easily
Let's say I want to increase stochastic violence in America. I rate the traits of as many people as I can across as many useful criteria as I can measure. I could then tweak an algorithm to show something I think would radicalize people to a test group, and measure again. I then take what I learned, and polish my approach until I'm ready to go live
You can do this to whatever end you like - and browsing habits can only tell a human so much, but this is what big data does. It finds associations humans wouldn't see through math
This probably sounds like I'm wearing a tin foil hat, but this is a real thing. This is how foreign election interference works - astroturfing blindly only does so much, and modeling a population isn't difficult (depending on what you're trying to do)
Now as for browsing habits - like location data or Facebook friends, with enough data points you can find out things about a person they don't know themselves. It may or may not make sense to a human, but big data is all about finding associations through blind math.
If you provide a set of data points, you contribute. It may or may not influence you, but either way it improves the ability to influence those around you.
I don't know how much opera collects, I don't know how much of that data is exfiltrated to China. I know I don't want anyone to have too much of that data, but I also have to live my life.
It's a matter of harm reduction - educate yourself on your choices, listen to people who dive deeper than you're willing to, and do what you can to make the most ethical choice based on where you are right now. There's no perfect choice