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."

Comments

I beg to differ

[laron]

"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.

Re:I beg to differ

[sabernet]

But your friends know you. And they may, in fact, be posting information about you. Everything from tagging pictures to leaving notes. You have no control over this.

Re:I beg to differ

[epine]

And people can still google it and it can still ruin your life.

Do you feel beholden to the idiots who make snap judgments of others based on indirect or second hand information? These McCarthyists with their lists of Facebook URLs have the power to ruin your life? How so? Why is it you've delegated this power to others who lack the wits to exercise considered judgment? Or is it instead the case that the photos from your personal life present you doing things that no reasonable person would do?

There's an element of chicken shit to take the anonymous court of public opinion quite so seriously. It often stems from the desire to substitute dignity with irreproachableness. Part of the deal with dignity is accepting that you can't force others to draw the right conclusions. If you take the opposite approach and try to control what people conclude about you, you'll discover one of two things: a) you're sucking up to the rich and powerful, or b) the people whose opinions you have successfully shaped have no significance. Option (a) works, if that's what you want.

I'm personally looking forward to the generation where when you look for someone on the web, and find nothing at all, you judge what that person might be hiding more seriously than you judge the ordinary defects of those who fear less to make themselves known.

Re:I beg to differ

[AK Marc]

As bad as it is in the US,

Too late. If it's bad, I don't care where it's worse. It's bad in the US. Go to some place like New Zealand. You'll find many straight people saying "partner" in relation to their spouse or unmarried life partner. When the terminology is such where a committed pair of gays and a committed straight couple can talk without having the words they choose reveal something about themselves, then you know you are free. The US still pushes terminology that separates gays. If they want to talk family at work, they either have to lie, or they are revealed in the first sentence. Tolerance isn't trying to pretend it doesn't matter. Tolerance is an apathy of the personal details of others. Masturbate to wildlife videos of seals mating? I don't care. Don't hurt seals, and I'll never bother you. But in the US, someone that thinks oddly is persecuted. For a country that prides itself on the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought that's considered even more important, there's a lot of persecution for thoughtcrimes like liking someone in "that way" that you don't approve of.

Well, that seems cut & dried...

[Angostura]

From the article:

The two students had no way of checking all of their predictions, but based on their own knowledge outside the Facebook world, their computer program appeared quite accurate for men, they said.

...The work has not been published in a scientific journal...

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.

Incomplete headline

[straponego]

Should be: MIT Project "Gaydar" Shakes Privacy Assumptions of Stupid Twats Who Still Won't Care

Re:Not exactly rocket surgery!

[guyminuslife]

Likewise, if twenty-five of your thirty Facebook friends are gay and of the opposite gender as you, they conclude you're probably single.

Re:I'm still safe...

[Archaemic]

With a username like "celibate for life", they don't really have to invent anything to tell you're a virgin.

Re:MIT Gaydar should be Facebook app

[IANAAC]

Also, this could be useful as a dating tool; if you don't know if the object of your affections is gay or not, run them through MIT Gaydar, and then possibly feel more secure about asking them out.

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.

Re:MIT Gaydar should be Facebook app

[noundi]

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.

Re:MIT Gaydar should be Facebook app

[Kell Bengal]

I disagree that the US considers people gay on the basis of what they do. There are lots of counter examples of people who aren't the way they act: closet gays, bicurious, abstaining gay christians, lifestyle gays, metrosexuals, gay until graduation.

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.

Confirming sayings

[Tarrio]

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.

Re:MIT Gaydar should be Facebook app

[glwtta]

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.

Re:you are wrong.

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:you are wrong.

[mick88]

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.

Re:MIT Gaydar should be Facebook app

[rohan972]

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.