The possibilities are believable, but this article is devoid of sources, links for further reading, or general presentation of evidence for its claims.
The possibilities are believable, but this article is devoid of sources, links for further reading, or general presentation of evidence for its claims.
Just google the companies. Corelogic Retail Equation Not in article, but The Work Number - Insuring your future income is tied to existing/past income! It's funny how all these aggregate 'social...
I mean, that's not the original article. As said by @Erik, it's a WaPo repost, so wouldn't it be better to blame @cmccabe for posting this article instead of the other one, or at least linking it...
I mean, that's not the original article. As said by @Erik, it's a WaPo repost, so wouldn't it be better to blame @cmccabe for posting this article instead of the other one, or at least linking it as a comment saying that has article has all the links and sources?
If the article is such an egregious violation of content norms on Tildes, please just let me know, and I'll delete it. My feeling is that the article is thought provoking, scholarly attention to...
If the article is such an egregious violation of content norms on Tildes, please just let me know, and I'll delete it. My feeling is that the article is thought provoking, scholarly attention to citations or not. The extent and techniques of surveillance capitalism is an extremely important topic, and any way of getting people to think about it is valuable. Plus, I personally do not mind when an article leads me to investigate a topic through further, self-directed reading and didn't realize that was off-putting to others.
I mean, the headline and the text don't really imply an opinion to be thought provoking, even if that's what's tagged in both the articles, more so a news article stating what's happening, and...
My feeling is that the article is thought provoking, scholarly attention to citations or not.
I mean, the headline and the text don't really imply an opinion to be thought provoking, even if that's what's tagged in both the articles, more so a news article stating what's happening, and stating what's happening without any links to prove/contextualize it isn't the best.
I personally do not mind when an article leads me to investigate a topic through further, self-directed reading and didn't realize that was off-putting to others.
Why would the WaPo article make you do that any less? In this case the added reason is "the article didn't cite it's own claims".
Right now when I click on the WaPo article, I can read it, but the first time I tried, it said I had to log in. Sorry if I don’t reply further to this side thread. My opinion is that posts on...
Right now when I click on the WaPo article, I can read it, but the first time I tried, it said I had to log in.
Sorry if I don’t reply further to this side thread. My opinion is that posts on topics that might trigger good discussions are useful, even if the article isn’t high quality. If an article is obviously filled with misinformation, then criticism of the journalistic quality seems appropriate. Otherwise it just feels like off topic pedantry to me. I think this is to the detriment of Tildes and a response that will turn off a lot of potential contributors.
The article recommends a 21st century version of the Congressionally "established rules in the 1970s giving consumers the right to review and question their credit scores". Of course, the article...
The article recommends a 21st century version of the Congressionally "established rules in the 1970s giving consumers the right to review and question their credit scores".
Of course, the article also admits that Congress is "awash in tech money" and unlikely to do the right thing. "This is only the latest example of Washington's capitulation to the tech industry, whose continuous loop of privacy violations, abject apologies and payment of inconsequential penalties confirms that consumers cannot rely on the federal government for protection."
Voters need to consider issues like this when they vote, and get rid of politicians that are either paid to ignore the issues or that simply don't understand them.
Issue there is twofold. Voting every 2/4 years is hardly enough anymore, with tech advancing at ever-increasing speed. But also....the vast majority of voters also have no idea, or even think...
Voters need to consider issues like this when they vote, and get rid of politicians that are either paid to ignore the issues or that simply don't understand them.
Issue there is twofold. Voting every 2/4 years is hardly enough anymore, with tech advancing at ever-increasing speed.
But also....the vast majority of voters also have no idea, or even think these are good things.
Not to mention the difficulty in discerning what the running politicians even stand for... If it's not one of their main platforms, they don't gain much by taking a definitive stance. I emailed,...
Not to mention the difficulty in discerning what the running politicians even stand for... If it's not one of their main platforms, they don't gain much by taking a definitive stance. I emailed, snail mailed, and faxed my governor, congressman, and senators several times a week leading up the the net neutrality vote a while back and only one of them ever responded with whether they were for or against it. It's hard to get them to respond to any question, much less something as abstract as technological privacy as a whole
I'm not from the US and I hate talking on the phone, specially to strangers. But I think that is more productive than sending letters and e-mails. This was recommended in a video (from a...
I'm not from the US and I hate talking on the phone, specially to strangers. But I think that is more productive than sending letters and e-mails.
This was recommended in a video (from a politician) about online privacy and certain dangerous bills that are being discussed right now in the US: https://open.lbry.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/Cyber-czar:4?r=9WusXdVL194cxkERQ3Wwh1AWCikKwU8c
The possibilities are believable, but this article is devoid of sources, links for further reading, or general presentation of evidence for its claims.
Just google the companies.
Not in article, but The Work Number - Insuring your future income is tied to existing/past income!
It's funny how all these aggregate 'social scores' are fine and dandy when it isn't China doing it.
I mean, that's not the original article. As said by @Erik, it's a WaPo repost, so wouldn't it be better to blame @cmccabe for posting this article instead of the other one, or at least linking it as a comment saying that has article has all the links and sources?
If the article is such an egregious violation of content norms on Tildes, please just let me know, and I'll delete it. My feeling is that the article is thought provoking, scholarly attention to citations or not. The extent and techniques of surveillance capitalism is an extremely important topic, and any way of getting people to think about it is valuable. Plus, I personally do not mind when an article leads me to investigate a topic through further, self-directed reading and didn't realize that was off-putting to others.
I mean, the headline and the text don't really imply an opinion to be thought provoking, even if that's what's tagged in both the articles, more so a news article stating what's happening, and stating what's happening without any links to prove/contextualize it isn't the best.
Why would the WaPo article make you do that any less? In this case the added reason is "the article didn't cite it's own claims".
Right now when I click on the WaPo article, I can read it, but the first time I tried, it said I had to log in.
Sorry if I don’t reply further to this side thread. My opinion is that posts on topics that might trigger good discussions are useful, even if the article isn’t high quality. If an article is obviously filled with misinformation, then criticism of the journalistic quality seems appropriate. Otherwise it just feels like off topic pedantry to me. I think this is to the detriment of Tildes and a response that will turn off a lot of potential contributors.
This article is republished from the original WaPo version. That version still has all the hyperlinks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/31/data-isnt-just-being-collected-your-phone-its-being-used-score-you/
Very creepy... But how do you stop it?
The article recommends a 21st century version of the Congressionally "established rules in the 1970s giving consumers the right to review and question their credit scores".
Of course, the article also admits that Congress is "awash in tech money" and unlikely to do the right thing. "This is only the latest example of Washington's capitulation to the tech industry, whose continuous loop of privacy violations, abject apologies and payment of inconsequential penalties confirms that consumers cannot rely on the federal government for protection."
Voters need to consider issues like this when they vote, and get rid of politicians that are either paid to ignore the issues or that simply don't understand them.
Issue there is twofold. Voting every 2/4 years is hardly enough anymore, with tech advancing at ever-increasing speed.
But also....the vast majority of voters also have no idea, or even think these are good things.
Not to mention the difficulty in discerning what the running politicians even stand for... If it's not one of their main platforms, they don't gain much by taking a definitive stance. I emailed, snail mailed, and faxed my governor, congressman, and senators several times a week leading up the the net neutrality vote a while back and only one of them ever responded with whether they were for or against it. It's hard to get them to respond to any question, much less something as abstract as technological privacy as a whole
I'm not from the US and I hate talking on the phone, specially to strangers. But I think that is more productive than sending letters and e-mails.
This was recommended in a video (from a politician) about online privacy and certain dangerous bills that are being discussed right now in the US: https://open.lbry.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/Cyber-czar:4?r=9WusXdVL194cxkERQ3Wwh1AWCikKwU8c