Slashdot Mirror
MIT Project "Gaydar" Shakes Privacy Assumptions
theodp writes "At MIT, an experiment that identifies which students are gay is raising new questions about online privacy. Using data from Facebook, two students in an MIT class on ethics and law on the electronic frontier made a striking discovery: just by looking at a person's online friends, they could predict whether the person was gay. The project, given the name 'Gaydar' by the students, is part of the fast-moving field of social network analysis, which examines what the connections between people can tell us, from predicting who might be a terrorist to the likelihood a person is happy, fat, liberal, or conservative." MIT professor Hal Abelson, who co-taught the course, is quoted: "That pulls the rug out from a whole policy and technology perspective that the point is to give you control over your information — because you don't have control over your information."
"That pulls the rug out from a whole policy and technology perspective that the point is to give you control over your information -- because you don't have control over your information."
I have control over my information. And that is why you wont find be on Facebook.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
From the article:
I once wrote a computer program that predicted coin tosses. I didn't check, but I'm pretty sure that if I had tossed a coin that the predictions would have been accurate.
Should be: MIT Project "Gaydar" Shakes Privacy Assumptions of Stupid Twats Who Still Won't Care
You mean if people can view your social networks on facebook they can deduce some basic facts about you? Shocking! People really need to think about the compromise that they are making when they make their FB profiles and info visible to anyone but their immediate friends. It's ok if you want to do it, but just realize what you are doing.
Being on a social network site at all exposes you a lot. I decided I didn't give a crap, but I have everything set to 'friends only' and I don't use apps or quizzes. Reasonable compromise for a non-tin-foil-hatter.
Likewise, if twenty-five of your thirty Facebook friends are gay and of the opposite gender as you, they conclude you're probably single.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
A computer fed with a few hundred megabytes of personal data can now determine in minutes what most of us in the life know as soon as we see the person. I should be impressed, except I'm totally not. Don't worry about this ever becoming popular though -- sooner or later someone will feed the program a list of US senators and then magically the next day all traces of the program, its authors, and the results will be declared illegal and the arrests will begin -- effective last tuesday.
More seriously, the problem isn't that people may be able to infer a person's sexual orientation -- it's the fact that this society still refuses to label those who use this type of information to slander, attack, and in some cases kill, other people. Our transparent society has brought a lot of social issues right out in the open where everyone can see them. And we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the injustices perpetuated by one group onto another. This, fundamentally, is what the fight over privacy is about: It's not what we are (or are not) that matters, but rather the correlations between those facts and the social meanings and messages attached to them. The fight for privacy is really founded upon the belief that the average person is insecure, full of prejudice and bile, and is generally a manipulative bastard who'll stab you in the back given half a chance.
And I can't find any fault in that statement. Most people are, and thus... Privacy will remain an important thing to fight for so long as we have reason to fight amongst ourselves.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
With a username like "celibate for life", they don't really have to invent anything to tell you're a virgin.
Or, you know, you could just take the time to get to know someone a bit before asking them out. 'Course, you'd have to log off and go out into the real world to to that.
That's not just a gay issue.. just ask any teenager (and quite a few adults)
The problem is when we start using these perfectly reasonable tools to begin to make real decisions. You are guilty because the runes said so. Most of us tend to believe that decisions should be made on some direct evidence, not indirect assumption. I mean it is not liek some guys think, that every girl that won't go out with them is a lesbian and every guy that hates football is gay.
There is the issue of what makes a person gay, straight, or bi. Just like sleeping with large numbers of the opposite sex does not make one straight, and may indicate a deep seated concern, there is nothing other than a self identification that can suggest a real sexual preference. I don't think a professional, or computer program, or parent can within a reasonable certainty state a sexual preference for another person. And this has nothing to do with the controversy. It has to do with weather we live by reason and evidence or by superstition and hearsay. I think the MIT people are simply too infatuated with cult of technology.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
I am the lawn!
Some act gay but aren't, some explore 'alternative' sexualities but never feel that they aren't straight, some clearly self-identify as gay but don't actually have same-sex intercourse. Despite the world's efforts to put us all into convenient pigeon holes, sexuality is a complex spectrum that doesn't lend itself well to assumptions.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
There's a Spanish saying, "tell me who you are with and I'll tell you who you are". I guess this is scientific proof.
Have you considered that the algorithm might just be
a) "If user is hetero show ads from companies that want to reach hetero males"
b) "If user is gay show ads from companies that want to reach gay males"
c) "If unsure show both"
with your area, at the time, having no businesses that wanted to reach people through facebook?
I know I've yet to see a titty bar advertise on FB, and you had excluded the dating sites by saying you were in a relationship.
Just about every kind of identity in the U.S. seems wrapped around what one does, what one has or his position.
Right, because we don't have things like gender, race, or age in the US.
Anyway, sorry to disrupt the "I'm so damn straight!" fest.
sic transit gloria mundi
You have two concepts confused:
1) What features women say they find attractive in men
2) What features women *actually* find attractive in men
The two are not even remotely close to the same.
Comment of the year
<bi male>
Topless man or woman is pretty much the same thing to me.
Do straight men get a small sexual kick out of walking round topless? I find it erotic. (Do women?)
</bi male>
Don't get me wrong - I love slashdot. But I have to disagree that posting on slashdot raises your logic quotient. 50% of the reason why I skim posts is to watch the irrational / illogical comment wars unfold. It's kinda fascintating.
I created this account just so I could comment on this story
Namely, the project shows that its authors consider "gayness"/homosexuality to be something that many people would like to hide, to the point that they would suffer embarrassment or worse if someone else was able to infer it from other data.
Why not make "Project White-dar"? I'll bet you could figure out if someone is white (or black, or Hispanic, or Zoroastrian) based on their Facebook friends. Most white people don't go around online pointing out loudly that they're white. You don't see too many Slashdot sigs that say, "Hey, I'm Caucasian." But I'm guessing most white people would also not really care if you figured out that they were white based on their Facebook friends, or where they live, or some other data.
I think there are lots of kinds of information that people broadcast about themselves--income, education level, relationship status, etc.--which are expressed implicitly in various forms--language usage, clothing style, social networks, etc. Nevertheless people often don't state these things openly.
Why should being gay be any different in this day and age, at least in countries that no longer have widespread institutionalized discrimination against gays?
Bottom line: All of the interest in this study seems to derive from the tacit notion that there is or should be something inherently shameful about being gay.
My bicyles
My Kingdom for a mod point! Not being able to ask someone out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection is surely a weighty cross to bear.
That is solved by socially accepting homosexuals, not by probing them.
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection?
Maybe it's because you're skinny or have acne, not much money, not socially confident etc, etc. No matter how well gays are accepted everyone still risks rejection when they ask someone out. I'm not sure that "No, I'm not gay" is more hurtful than "No, I don't like you" as a rejection. I think there is no way to make rejection more palatable. You just have to learn to deal with it, part of that being more selective who you ask.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection?
I'm pretty sure that heterosexuals do. However, I'm equally sure that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of getting their ass kicked simply for daring to ask out someone who doesn't match their sexuality.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world where homosexuals do have that fear.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
People tend to point out ways in which they are NOT the default for a given venue. So you can reasonably conclude that those who don't point out their differences probably don't have said differences. Rather like how here on Slashdot, we can reasonably assume posters are geeks unless they state otherwise, because that's the local default.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
It is totally true. But it has to be real, you can't have fake respect like opening the door for her and then not paying attention to what she wants.
Qxe4
Yup, that is what they all say. It isn't what they want though. Guys like that live exclusively in the friend zone.