Does Open Data Have a Dark Side?

itwbennett writes A Forbes article last month explored some of the potentially darker sides of open data — from creating a new kind of digital divide to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services. But how real are these downsides of open data? The World Wide Web Foundation's Open Data Program Manager Jose Alonso is unconcerned, telling ITworld's Phil Johnson via email that the WWWF "believes there is no substantial evidence yet that the availability of Open Data leads to the marketization of public services or public spending cuts." But Ben Wellington, a professor in the City & Regional Planning program at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, New York and author of the popular blog I Quant NY, takes a more cautious stance, acknowledging that there are some real concerns that may call for regulation. But, at least for now, "there's a lot more innovation and positive things coming out than these corner cases," says Wellington.

Comments

If I ever have a kid, I'm going to name it

[Anonymous Coward]

But Ben Wellington

Dark side

[bugs2squash]

I don't see that the privatization of government services is necessarily a "dark side". If the services can be delivered more effectively and efficiently by private organizations then they should be. My only problem is with those that would campaign for privatization when there is good evidence to suggest things will be worse as a consequence just because they are anti-government.

Re:Dark side

[xPhoenix]

The problem with privatization is not that the service is being provided by a private organization, it's that it's trading one monopoly (public) for another (private). The issue is that certain services have been monopolized by the government via the law. Services aren't magically better when performed by private companies. They are better in the free market because there is competition and no one can force you do to one thing or the other. Government and the services it has privatized are still just monopolies.

Re:Dark side

[Tablizer]

I agree it's easier said than done. I would note that much of the Federal government already contracts out routine and easy-to-define services. It's one of the reason why the average salary of a Federal employee is higher than average: many repetitious and simpler tasks are already contacted out. The remaining Federal employees are largely overseers and inspectors, which generally require more credentials and experience, resulting in a high average salary. (Rush L. fails to mention this in his salary rants.)

But devil is in the details, and without specific scenarios or situations, it's hard to comment on the article.

I can envision cases where the privacy of gov't employees is put at risk if you publish who did what and when. Being too far under a microscope can make one over-focus on CYA instead of getting the job done efficiently.

Re:Dark side

[circletimessquare]

My only problem is with those that would campaign for privatization when there is good evidence to suggest things will be worse as a consequence just because they are anti-government.

And within that one tiny sentence is encapsulated decades of economically ignorant hot air. Thank you.

There exists a class of loud, toxic morons in the USA that actually believes everything should be privatized, and they are either 1. stupid, they honestly can't see how this makes some services worse (roads, police, broadband, healthcare, etc.), or 2. evil, they do know it will make things worse, but they want to profit unfairly off of our misery as entrenched rent seeking parasites (while talking in dishonesty about "capitalism" when there is no competition and there can be none due to natural barriers to entry).

Re:Dark side

[plopez]

Privatization is just a code word for handing a monopoly over to the private sector, sometimes with deadly results such as the water riots. I see it as brining the Spoils System back in in a sneaky sort of way.

Not also that taxpayers who often invested in infrastructure for decades are never given any ROI like stockholders would. The companies often get a huge amount of goods or infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.

Re:Dark side

[mi]

Privatization is just a code word for handing a monopoly over to the private sector

That would, indeed, be bad — worse than government monopoly — if EZ-Pass is anything to go by.

But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?

The companies often get a huge amount of goods or infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.

A "fair price" of anything is what other people are willing to pay. Taxpayers may have spent a billion dollars on it, but if $10 million is the most anybody would pay (after an honest and open bidding), then that's what it ought to cost. Yes, taxpayers were cheated — but not at the time of privatization...

Re:Dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

I would submit that the telecom industry fits your point 2 pretty nicely, especially as they have mostly natural monopolies and are loath to actually allow capitalism to endanger their ridiculous profit margins.

Re:Dark side

[Cenan]

I would note that much of the Federal government already contracts out routine and easy-to-define services

And to former federal employees in many more cases than it should be. You are kidding yourself if you think that is not a closed ecosystem. It is a monopoly, and one that is much harder to see through.

Re:Dark side

[rmstar]

But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents?

I agree with you. Most adherents of privatization are just useful fools believing some fantasy free market stuff. The spoils go to the cunning investors that have the networks and skills to rig things in their favor.

A "fair price" of anything is what other people are willing to pay. Taxpayers may have spent a billion dollars on it, but if $10 million is the most anybody would pay (after an honest and open bidding), then that's what it ought to cost. Yes, taxpayers were cheated â" but not at the time of privatization...

Many things have high value to society but would be useless to an investor. For example, regular public transport to far away places so that the countryside doesn't die. That costs a lot, is valuable, but nobody would pay much to own it privately.

I wonder what it is that has robbed people like you of any fantasy and creativity for making arguments and counterarguments in your head. You know, that thing called critical thinking.

Also: please get wise. Money isn't the measure of everything.

Re:Dark side

[DUdsen]

But what makes you think, creation of such private monopolies is the secret goal of privatization's adherents? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or are you just throwing unsubstantiated allegations around?

It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition, sure they dont use those words but newspeak like market differentiation or leveraging intellectual property but the goal of any publicly traded company is always to overcharge customers, and avoid markets with real competition and low profit margins.

There might be naive idiots in congress who have bought the false premise that deregulation leads to competition and not cartel forming and other dirty tactics, but most of the trade lobbyist funding said politicians are less naive then that.

The system they are building with privatization and deregulation more neo-mercantilist then neo-capitalist

Re:Dark side

[roman_mir]

The long time kuro5hin.org troll strikes again. People who talk about reducing government oppression and allowing people actually to make ultimate decisions in their lives without being oppressed are either stupid or evil. Those are the choices the troll is giving you and you are eating it right up, /..

Re:Dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see that the privatization of government services is necessarily a "dark side".

Then you probably don't have any first-hand experience with government contractors. The ineptitude commonly attributed to "government workers" is commonly actually contract workers, and their cost to the taxpayer is 2 or 3 times as much as the equivalent government employee - even after accounting for benefits and pensions.

If the services can be delivered more effectively and efficiently by private organizations then they should be.

It is very rare that a contractor will provide the same level of experience and expertise for a lower price. Professional government positions pay lower than the private sector already. Where government positions often pay more than the private sector is in the low skill jobs, many of which are already contracted out.

My only problem is with those that would campaign for privatization when there is good evidence to suggest things will be worse as a consequence just because they are anti-government.

That' already is the case. People refuse to accept the plain facts that contracting out professional work is always more expensive than using in-house staff. Contracting only makes sense for jobs that are intermittent in nature.

Re:Dark side

[mi]

It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition

Sure, each corporation wants to be the monopoly in its respective market(s).

But that's not, what I'm challenging here. Plopez above alleges, the very term "privatization" is a "code word". That adherents of it are conspiring to help such corporations. It is this allegation that remains unsubstantiated.

There might be naive idiots in congress who have bought the false premise that deregulation leads to competition

You are entitled to doubt the benefits of deregulation, but not to make bold claims like the above — not without substantiation. Can you prove, that the premise is "false"?

Re:Dark side

[mi]

For example, regular public transport to far away places so that the countryside doesn't die. That costs a lot, is valuable

Why is it valuable? Could you substantiate this claim — without calling me names?

Money isn't the measure of everything.

Indeed, money is not the measure of everything. But we are talking about prices ("fair" and otherwise) and costs — the boring things measured in money and nothing else.

that thing called critical thinking.

It would help, if you stopped talking about things you know so little about...

Re:Dark side

[circletimessquare]

because oppression always comes from government and never from anything else

would you mind educating your ignorant shitstained mouth and then speak next time?

here's some intellectual charity you dumb fuck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

this is where you go "HURR DURR MONOPOLIES DON'T EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT *DROOL SNORT*"

with weak government, their powers increase you mindless twat

study you're fucking history

you are stupid and uneducated person. really. that's not a baseless insult. that's objectively true, to believe the ignorant things you do. you're like a creaitonist or an antivaxxer, you're blind ignorant trust in the magic free market fairy to solve all problems, when it clearly does not

Re:Dark side

[roman_mir]

You think your pseudo-intellectual midgetry matters to me one bit, you gnome? Robber barons were captains of industry that created the wealth that the likes of pukes like you always want a piece of to steal for yourself. Monopolies are created by governments and as to private police force protecting private property - that's the only police force that has any moral grounds to exist in the first place.

Go pound a piece of crocodile dung, there is nothing I need from you at any moment in time, nothing useful comes out of your mouth, unless they can invent a machine powered by your mouth farts.

Re:Dark side

[rmstar]

Why is it valuable? Could you substantiate this claim â" without calling me names?

Because the countryside doesn't die, asshole?

Oh, I think failed this one.

Re:Dark side

[mi]

Because the countryside doesn't die

Countryside not dying is valuable because the countryside doesn't die. I see...

Oh, I think failed this one.

In more ways than one.

Re:Dark side

[rmstar]

Countryside not dying is valuable because the countryside doesn't die. I see...

So, why is it valuable to let the countryside die?

Go ahead, be the asshole you are.

Re:Dark side

[circletimessquare]

as to private police force protecting private property - that's the only police force that has any moral grounds to exist in the first place.

so if you're poor, the only rights you have is to be abused anyway a plutocrats wants you to be?

this is what freedom means to you?

nevermind that question, not that it seems you want freedom or human rights. the only thing you understand is "i have money, fuck you"

which is the status quo in plenty of poor countries with no functional government, with a few ultrarich who can do anything and a sea of poor who can do nothing

that's the utopia that you want

and you are never going to get

because we're just not as fucking stupid as you

now get back to sucking plutocrat cock, you ignorant sycophant

Re:Dark side

[roman_mir]

You are about as disgusting as a zit, once you get squeezed all that puss starts coming out, you thieving cock smegma.

Re:Dark side

[circletimessquare]

how do you talk with your mouth full of plutocrat cock?

Re:Dark side

[rhodium_mir]

My normal approach is useless here...

Re:Dark side

[roman_mir]

Your gay projections are powerless here, you are a disease that the society is dying off now, the foul rot of your brain is trying to transfer itself through the foul excretions of your mouth hole into the ears of the stupid and the weak, but like all diseases you will either go away and disappear or destroy the host, there are no other options.

Re:Dark side

[circletimessquare]

here's your options when the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class shrivels up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

etc.

Is that what you want? Or is it you historically ignorant as to what inevitably happens?

We beat the plutocrats once:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

We'll do it again.

Maybe this time we'll get some constitutional amendments so we don't have a threepeat of plutocrat douchebags ruining the economy.

You really think the middle class can continue to be destroyed and the poor made poorer, all so a few ultrarich ENTITLED shits get even more... and no one will notice or care?

Oh I'm sorry, I mean "steal" the fruits of our own labors... hoarded by a well connected few.

Yeah, that's going to hold. Yup. Uh huh.

Re:Dark side

[roman_mir]

More of this to come and for a good reason.

As to revolutions and such nonsense - the stupid and jealous should learn to see beyond their nose, none of those revolutions made anything better for the people who were poor in those systems prior to any of it. The poor get poorer, the rich leave.

I have 0 interest in any of your jealousy, 0 interest in any theft and redistribution of stolen goods by the mob for the mob. Revolutions are a ruse, they were always set up by pseudo-intellectuals who wanted power and used the dumb masses to get that power and then they stomped all over those masses once they got to power.

AFAIC people will eventually learn that it is better to live in an actual capitalist free market society after going through so many ridiculous attempts at theft and redistribution.

But don't be mistaken by my civil response to your comment, I see you as vomit, nothing more.

Re:Dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't be mistaken by my civil response to your comment, I see you as vomit, nothing more.

even excepting the "I see you as vomit" bit, how was your response "civil"? or is this as close to "love thy neighbor" as your religion gets?

Privatization

[Anonymous Coward]

Critics of the government can use open data to make a case for cuts in government spending on public services, potentially leading to the privatization of such services and related assets.

How the fuck is this even remotely a "dark side" of open data?

If the government is wasting money on a program that can be served at a lower cost by private industry... that seems like a benefit to me. Now, there's certainly the risk that "somebody will distort the data" -- but after all, if the data is open, anybody with Excel and a little bit of time should be able to refute the conclusions of the person doing the distortion.

Only in the eyes of Slashdot would "somebody criticizing the government and arguing in favor of privatization of wastefully-managed services" be a bad thing. Repeat after me, Slashdotters: government services are not a fact of nature to be unquestioningly accepted and blindly supported. Fuck, you lot spend more time questioning ACTUAL laws of nature than you do the proper role of your government.

And to head off the "hurr durr Ayn Rand reader alert neocon" tards: I am neither Randian nor Republican. I am a fan of *objectively* assessing the performance of my government and killing programs that are less effective and efficient than equivalent services that could be provided by some other non-governmental organization. In other words, I am in favor of using open data to measure and improve the efficiency of government.

What's "darker" about privizing services?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Forbes article last month explored some of the potentially darker sides of open data â" from ... to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services.

What's "darker" about privatizing government services?

Government is FORCE. When it "provides a service" it uses that force to make everybody using that sort of service use THEIR service, which they do THEIR way, and prevent anyone from providing the equivalent service in a possibly better and/or less expensive way.

We're seeig this now with Obamacare. But this has been going on since there have been governments. One of the earliest examples with THIS government was the suppression of alternative mail services.

Now there MAY be a FEW services where privatizing them are an issue. But we can discuss those on a case-by-case basis. For the bulk of them, why should the government even be involved?

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government can do a lot of things more efficiently because they can leverage economy of scale and there aren't CEOs and shareholders colluding to skim a lot of profit away from the venture. It's the same reason people have been banding together to do things ever since we came down out of the trees. The only thing that is required is sensible oversight, which admittedly is lacking these days. But that's not an unfixable problem. Try getting any kind of oversight of MegaCorp.

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[Tablizer]

We're seeing this now with Obamacare

Seeing what exactly? Most of the health providers are private companies. O-care just ensures everybody pays into the system and that the providers correctly provide at least a minimum standard levels of service. If you wish to privatize parts of this mix, what parts would it be?

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Now there MAY be a FEW services where privatizing them are an issue. But we can discuss those on a case-by-case basis. For the bulk of them, why should the government even be involved?

There's an easy way to draw this line - economists speak of "public goods" - which has a special meaning in economics that's not what a layman might guess it would be, and that is goods that markets can never provide because the economics of producing them is incompatible with markets.

The trick, usually, is that most arguments for most things as "public goods" are missing essential insights or intellectual rigor.

But at least there's a framework for working at the problem.

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[AchilleTalon]

Are you kidding? The government is getting half my pay each year and they do not leverage anything. They are employing a lot of people which have almost zero incentive to improve anything. Whatever happen, they will get paid and they will get their retirement allowance and pension which is above what most people in private sector can dream to have when time of retirement will come. The inefficiencies of the governments are costing manifold the profit CEOs and shareholders are pumping from the private ventures. You are living on another planet.

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[plopez]

Corporations are force too. But under a junta (the CEO and BOD) as opposed to voter sanctioned.

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[plopez]

do you have public roads, schools, hospitals, utilties? Then you are getting a return. Airports? Mass transit? Either the country you are living in is horribly dysfunctional (e.g. Nigeria) or you are sadly mistaken.

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are force too. But under a junta (the CEO and BOD) as opposed to voter sanctioned.

Really? When's the last time that a corporation threw you in jail for failing to buy their product?

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[moeinvt]

I would get the government out of healthcare entirely. Their 50 year intervention has created an absolute disaster of exploding costs, lack of competition and stagnation of quality. Millions unable to afford even the most basic services, the working uninsured being billed at exorbitant levels to subsidize government programs, etc. etc.
If by "the system" you mean private insurance companies, then you're right. Forcing us to buy their products and entrenching a middle man that adds little value to the system.
Going through health insurance companies for a routine service such as an annual physical is like going through an auto insurance company for an oil change.
Competition and innovation are what drive down prices and increase quality. Governments never do.
I think the automobile model is appropriate. Most services should be purchased directly by the customer from the provider with complete price transparency in a competitive marketplace. Insurance should only come into play only for catastrophic problems. Having a middle man, be it government or insurance companies, involved in every single transaction is a ridiculous model.

Re:What's "darker" about privizing services?

[Tablizer]

I think the automobile model is appropriate.

No. Automobile performance is relatively easy to measure. Medical service is not because there are gajillion different types of treatment. If your brain surgery goes awry, you are too feeble to sue. And it's difficult to shop around when in pain. Plus, much about cars is regulated, such as safety.

If a product or service grows beyond a certain complexity, and/or the down-sides are long-term, then the consumer is often ill-equipped to make good decisions. Each individual is re-inventing trial-and-error lessons, which is poor factoring of knowledge, and therefore economically inefficient. There's no "reuse".

And quality evaluation companies have proven bribe-able or manipulate-able when their statements affect enough sales. For example, if bribed enough, they may be encouraged to skip evaluating a shady product altogether, and its legal.

The US has had poor service relative to other countries. They only thing the US did better on was cutting edge research, but the benefits of those often went to the well-to-do.

Open Data => Big Data => MongoDB

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's where the danger arises:

1) Some teenager hears about how his city is offering "Open Data" to the public.
2) This teenager downloads a few CSV files containing this data.
3) This teenager hears about how "cool" this programming language called Ruby is.
4) While learning Ruby, this teenager then finds out about this really "cool" trend called "Big Data".
5) While learning about Big Data, this teenager then finds out about this really "cool" data storage system called MongoDB.
6) This teenager installs Ruby and MongoDB on the Mac that he begged and begged and begged his Mommy and Daddy to buy for him.
7) Since he has Ruby and MongoDB installed, he now considers himself an "engineer".
8) Thinking he's an "engineer", he goes on Hacker News and randomly accuses others of being "disingenuous" or "snarky".
9) Still thinking he's an "engineer", he applies for the C++ programming positions I have open at my company, without actually even listing C++ on his resume.
10) I have to waste a few precious seconds of my time throwing his shitty resume into the trash.

Dark Side

[Stormy Dragon]

Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.

It has come to our attention some people out there have taken to learning things, which puts the stupid and the lazy at a severe disadvantage. We need to regulate this now, to make sure that everyone in this country is equally misinformed and ignorant!

Dark Vader

[Tablizer]

Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Dark Gravity, Dark Holes, Dark Data, where will it end?...

Re:Dark Vader

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, but it's Dark Turtles alll the way down.

Re:Dark Vader

[Anonymous Coward]

Dark Turtles are just the ones you can't see.

The dark side of data

[rossdee]

Lore

Jon Stewart said it best

[Keviniano]

"You can’t control what idiots will weaponize."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/jon-stewart-rosewater-in-conversation.html

unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a more fundamental concern should be unintended consequences. For example, what exactly is in this "open" data? Is there any possibility of spillage of personally identifiable information? What safeguards are put in place to prevent this? Also, even if safeguards are put in place, is there a danger that someone could find out information on individuals by aggregating information? I could imagine a scenario where, depending on what is opened to the public, someone may be able to put data from disparate sources together to obtain information on individual persons. Again, what safeguards would be put in place to prevent this?

What the fuck?

[Chappsterr]

*Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.

What the ever living fuck? Did the author think this through? Don't have the ability and skill to fix your broken toilet?! Just cry disadvantage!

The author of this article has obviously never worked with open data or knows anybody who has. There are an incredible number of benefits to having access to open data. For example, groups like Chicago's Open Gov Hack Night have done some pretty amazing things: http://opencityapps.org/

FUD.

Re:Open Data = Big Data = MongoDB

[Tablizer]

Yes, but think of the fun you can have asking him questions that exposes him for the fake that he is. It's not good for popularity, but there are few things that have more nerd pleasure than making pretenders squirm in their seats using knowledge and logic. Mass endorphins to the Asperger Lobe.

Huh?

[cascadingstylesheet]

We're supposed to be "afraid" that government services might be made to cost less?

Dark Data is a Straw man

[s.petry]

Here is a summary of what should have been said. "Any system implemented poorly has the potential for abuse." That is all that needed to be stated.

What I read in TFA are three separate straw man arguments.

1. Critics of the government can use open data to make a case for cuts in government spending on public services, potentially leading to the privatization of such services and related assets.
No kidding? You mean if we see where our money is being wasted we may have a voice and speak out about it? Demand that a half dozen employees from GSA get terminated for having a million dollar Vegas party with a few buddies? We see that our military spending in foreign countries is an amazing amount of money and we demand that we either receive money from the countries we are protecting or pull out?
This is exactly the reason we should have open data. It's called accountability, and every citizen living in a country is expected to be accountable.. unless of course you are in a Government position right?

2. Private companies and individuals can leverage open data for their own benefit, to the detriment of others.
If the data released to the public is not scrubbed of personal data of course there is risk. We have the same exact risk today because for some idiotic reason people decided that things like Employee IDs should be the same as your SSN. Sloppy practices are a bad idea, open data just means that we better have some eyes making sure that what gets published is clean.

3. Open data can create a new kind of digital divide, between those who have the ability and skill to use such data and those who don’t, putting the latter at a disadvantage.
This one is completely baseless, and in fact I'd argue the complete opposite of reality (shocking, I know). Companies right now are making money hand over fist by paying for data. If it becomes public, even small entrants can play.

Re:Open Data = Big Data = MongoDB

[lucm]

9) Still thinking he's an "engineer", he applies for the C++ programming positions I have open at my company, without actually even listing C++ on his resume.
10) I have to waste a few precious seconds of my time throwing his shitty resume into the trash

If your time was precious, your company would hire a low-cost HR drone who could filter out resume with no C++ experience for a C++ programming position.

But already since you use C++ there's a case to be made that time is worth nothing in your company.

Pre-emptive ad hominem

[mi]

There exists a class of loud, toxic morons in the USA that actually believes everything should be privatized

Exquisite! Pre-emptive ad hominem much?

(roads, police, broadband, healthcare, etc.) ... there can be none [competition -mi] due to natural barriers to entry

There are no "natural barriers to entry" to medicine. Nor to Internet Service provision. Many (most?) places can have competing roads — city of Tokyo has competing subway lines. Am I a "loud toxic moron" now?

As for police, yeah, no one would want competing armed men on the same street. But that does not mean, police services can not be contracted out. Why can't a town solicit bids every 5-10 years from competing police corporations? A winning bidder would have to enforce the local laws and be bound by certain performance targets (crime prevention, citizen complaints, wrong deaths in police shootings, successful prosecutions, etc.).

Re:Pre-emptive ad hominem

[circletimessquare]

educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

then speak

i do not respect you. do you respect antivaxxers? creationists? climate change deniers? 9/11 truthers?

we are talking about low iq, delusional, and mentally deficient people who believe these things. attacking your mental capacity if you believe in things like this, and things like free market fundamentalism, is not an ad hominem attack. it is actually an objective description of your mental capacity, as derived from the demonstrated use of your mental faculties, to arrive at horribly ignorant beliefs

a moron is a person of limited mental faculties. objectively correct. a moron believes in ignorant things easily demonstrated false. objectively correct. therefore, you are indeed, a moron, objectively speaking, not a baseless insult, if you are a free market fundamentalist (or antivaxxer or climate change denier etc.)

that certain politicians and plutocrats "respect you" and give your ignorance air time and exposure is simply these people noting the utility of "useful fools" to advance an agenda which only benefits them, at the expense of the rest of us

free market fundamentalism *does not work*. it is plutocrat propaganda. and since reagan you ignorants lap it up and believe it. because it is a simpleton's idea and you have a simplistic mind. again, not a baseless insult, an objectively correct statement as you have demonstrated by your own statements

here's some proof from a few hours ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Tea Party News Network Readers Are 'Unsophisticated Simpletons,' According to Resignation Letter

Most of the editorial staff of the Tea Party News Network resigned this afternoon following a Daily Beast exposé on the website’s desperate efforts to generate traffic. TPNN began in 2012 to give voice to the conservative grassroots and quickly grew a mass following among tea partiers, even scoring interviews with major figures in GOP. But shady business practices that blurred the line between the company’s non-profit political wing and its for-profit news wing—as well as increased reliance on fight porn—led to nearly the entire staff quitting Thursday. “The audience is regarded as unsophisticated simpletons," read the resignation letter to the site’s owner, Todd Cefaratti. "The activism that built all of the infrastructure is considered ‘a pain in the ass,’ not as an opportunity to save the country. As a group we can no longer tolerate being associated with these despicable practices.”

many news organization will engage in false balance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Other examples of false balance in reporting on science issues include the topics of man-made vs. natural climate change, the relation between Thiomersal and autism[5] and evolution vs. intelligent design.[6] For instance, although the scientific community attributes a component of climate change of the last 50–100 years, particularly global warming, to the effects of the industrial revolution,[7][8][9][10] there are a small number of scientists who dispute this conclusion.[11][12][13] Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a debate within the scientific community, even though there is a scientific consensus.

False balance can sometimes originate from similar motives as sensationalism, where producers and editors may feel that a story portrayed as a contentious debate will be more commercially successful than a more accurate account of the issue. However, unlike most other media biases, false balance may actually stem from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e.,

Re:Pre-emptive ad hominem

[mi]

educate yourself:

Your turn now. "Natural monopoly" is a myth.

i do not respect you. [...] then fucking open your ignorant mouth. until then, SHUT UP. you are, objectively speaking, a moron [...] you simply do not deserve respect

So, you will be yelling names and bona-fide obscenities at me until I agree with you? What a charming and persuasive way to win friends and influence people.

I think, we are done here. Thank you.

Re:Pre-emptive ad hominem

[circletimessquare]

seriously, just dealing with a creationist

"natural monopoly is a myth!" DROOL SNORT

all i can think of is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

that's the same level of intellect i am dealing with with such an ignorant low iq comment

you can't deny basic fucking reality and still think you get respect. you're a DUMB PERSON, who believes DUMB THINGS

why aren't there hospitals on every street corner? why don't we all build our own gigawatt power plants in our backyards? why don't we all start our own private police forces?

i'm going to build my own bridge over the river!

because natural monopoly is a myth!

there is no such thing as *high cost barrier to entry with low chance of return on investment*!

it's a librul statist myth! just climate change!

free market fairy, peace be unto you. everything you touch works with magic, no fucking actual thought or intelligence or logic or reason required

seriously dealing with you knuckle dragging free market fundamentalist morons is just like dealing with a creationist or ufo cultist. ignorant unsupported faith and belief instead of actual intelligence and education on a topic

Re:Pre-emptive ad hominem

[mi]

DROOL SNORT [...] Crocoduck [...] basic fucking reality [...] you're a DUMB PERSON, who believes DUMB THINGS [...] knuckle dragging free market fundamentalist

Yep. You convinced me. One of us is a loud toxic moron...

Re:Pre-emptive ad hominem

[circletimessquare]

I DON'T RESPECT YOU

you and you fucking ignorant douchebags are nothing but useful fools for plutocrats interests in this country

the sum total of your ignorant beliefs is to put money in the pockets of a few already super rich rent seeking parasites at the expense of the rest of us

you free market fundamentalists are dangerous ignorant toxic pieces of shit

you believe ignorant, uneducated, obviously wrong crap like a creationist or an antivaxxer

and like an antivaxxer spreads disease

and a creationist hurts children's education

the sum total of your stupid low iq shit stained LIES is the damaging of our economy and the middle class

false flag

[DUdsen]

Lets reduce his argument to it's core:

Non insiders might be allowed to use retorical tactics that had been exclusively reserved for insiders, and insiders will no longer be able to use the old "we have data you dont" line of reasoning to avoid debate.

Lets also remember that forbes editorial line is generally pro-privatization so it's kind of odd they would use the line that "open data" is good for outsourcing unless they are just trying to find a argument their political oppoents might buy, rather then a genuine concern.

Sure the date will be used by every group under the sun to give the appearance that their belief based statistics have data behind it, and some groups might use it to make an argument but it is an known cavear emptor of democracy that the public might be misled by charlatans and demagogues.

Looking at reality again data analysis is not the exclusive domain of the neo-mercantist and faux-liberatrain movements who tend to be incredible bad at it, but tend to be used just as effective among the proponents of government spending as among the opponents.

force is always better than choice, to the left

[raymorris]

>. the potentially darker sides of open data â" from creating a new kind of digital divide to making an argument in favor of privatizing certain government services.

If you choose to get a service from the provider you select, that's choice. If the government, in cooperation with their intelligence services, forces you to get the service, and get it from them, that force.

Force is necessarily ALWAYS better than choice. That's canon to the American left.

Privitization = Stealing Public Property

[Anonymous Coward]

My tax dollars paid for that public property. I want the pubilc to continue owning that property. Do not give my public property to a millionaire please.

Re:Privitization = Stealing Public Property

[HornWumpus]

In many cases the money should never have been spent. Selling it to someone who knows how to run it is the only way to stop the bleeding. The ratio of spending to price should tell you just how bad at this government is.

We don't really care what you 'want'. We also don't care that some want to hide the data about how bad the government is at some things.

Open data means less data

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes money to produce good quality scientific data. Giving it away for free (this is what open data is to the science world) means that no money comes in from selling the data. Typically this means that less data is produced. So yes, there is a dark side to open data: less data is produced because there is less money available for producing the data.

Media Transfer App

[Anonymous Coward]

Tired of big email attachments? Archive Box makes sharing your data simple. Transfer your data or media files in Archive Box, generate the link and share it to the world. Just like that! Try now. www.archive-box.com/howitworks