[PREV - SYSTEM_ERROR_AGENDA] [TOP]
SYSTEM_ERROR_USER_DATA
December 16, 2022
About "System Error" (2021):
SYSTEM_ERROR
The first compenent of their "An Agenda"
was buried deep on p.255-6:
"... addressing the huge power imbalance
between companies and consumers when it comes
to control over users' personal data. A far
more aggressive commitment to a right to data
protection, alongside government agencies
capable of enforcing that right, should be the
first critical check on corporate power."
"Such data protection should not only include
regulations for how users' data are used and
require consent for their collection--
principles already well outlined in the GDPR--
but also provide ways for moving data across
platforms, with privacy concerns in mind. If
Facebook users have already invested time in
connecting with hundreds of freinds and
uploading countless photos, it's unlikely that
they will switch to a new social network, even
if it has better features or adheres to polices (Why are they still making
they like more. It would simply be too much basic points like this late
work to re-create their existing online social in the book, in the middle
online social environment. Google's ill-fated of this statment of their
Google+ social network is proof that even a "agenda"? Wasn't their
well-funded competitor could not suceed in the room to make this obvious
current environment. Data portability would point about network effects
allow users to move their data, such as earlier?
pictures and posts, to a new platform, and
interoperability would guarantee that they
could maintain their online experience,
including their ..."
Let's work through the Facebook example
they're belaboring here:
Facebook has had to resort to buying potential
competitors like Instagram because many people
*were* switching. Doing a switch is difficult
but hardly impossible. If Facebook is required In practice, I suspect
to make it *easier* to switch to the new AssEnd people simply find that
network, does anything prevent them from simply just *walking away*
buying it up if people are actually trying to from their old data
switch? So for this to even work at all, you'd isn't particularly
need some traditional anti-trust activity ala difficult. I would
the third component of their "An Agenda": the guess they tell themselves
first depends on the third. they're going to manually
save the old photos they
care about, get to some
The claim that they know why Google+ of them, get tired of
was a bust is more than a little the process and eventually
dubious-- the success or failure of leave the bulk of them
these platforms is actually behind.
infinitely mysterious though as is
standard in the business press, Having to re-connect
everyone claims to know precisely with people on the
why things happen in retrospect even new platform is no
though they can't predict anything doubt an annoyance in
that's going to happen next. many cases, but in
some leaving behind a
I would say the trouble with Google+ few quote friends
was the lack of anything exciting could be a reason to
about it: if your problem with switch.
Facebook is "too big, too evil" then
Google is more of the same, if
perhaps evil-lite. Is Google less
ad-obsessed? More respectful of
user-data? Hardly.
Further:
"... connections to friends who have moved to
other networks. This would create a more
competitive marketplace, where users aren't
locked into one platform but can more easily
move to another platform they feel does a better
job of protecting their privacy or is more
aligned with their values."
The idea that *market competition* is going to improve
our information infrastructure presumes a rather
enlightened, dedicated, ethical citizenry, and the
evidence for this has been pretty weak for the last
half century or so.
"Technically, it's a tall order ..."
Technically it's not at all a tall order, and if
this were legally required it would happen over night.
"... but not impossible. In fact, something
called the OpenSocial specification was developed
in 2007 by a consortium of tech companies led by
Google to try to create such interoperably for
social networks. But the concept didn't get
broad traction, as dominant players like Facebook
saw no advantage to adopting it-- again providing
an example of why government regulations are more
likely to bring about needed changes even when
they are rejected by market forces."
There you go... and yet a moment ago they were citing
a "competitive marketplace" as being the key for something-
or-other.
--------
[NEXT - SOCIAL_SYSTEMS_UNIVERSAL_POST]