Slashdot Mirror


Google's Selfish Ledger is an Unsettling Vision of Silicon Valley Social Engineering (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Google has built a multibillion-dollar business out of knowing everything about its users. Now, a video produced within Google and obtained by The Verge offers a stunningly ambitious and unsettling look at how some at the company envision using that information in the future. The video was made in late 2016 by Nick Foster, the head of design at X (formerly Google X), and shared internally within Google. It imagines a future of total data collection, where Google helps nudge users into alignment with their goals, custom-prints personalized devices to collect more data, and even guides the behavior of entire populations to solve global problems like poverty and disease.

254 comments

  1. Fermi's paradox by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe we've found the answer.

  2. If the method works... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...why they do not use it to drive Google's development itself ?!?

    1. Re:If the method works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...why they do not use it to drive Google's development itself ?!?

      Hold on, my new Google Glasses are printing.
      I'll type up what I'm supposed to reply to you when they do.

    2. Re:If the method works... by Barny · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably because this was a thought experiment. This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.

      Slashdot just loves them some controversial headlines and stories, so they conveniently left that out with their blurb.

      Another non-story.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:If the method works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who thinks the lying liar Christine Peterson will ever do the interview for Slashdot? They dropped that quickly after the response in the comments section. I guess it's easy to lie to people with names since you can threaten to destroy them personally. Lying to anonymous people on the Internet is harder since they can speak freely without fear of persecution.

    4. Re:If the method works... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably because this was a thought experiment.

      That's irrelevant. The idea has been conceived and disseminated. The initial dissemination was among people with the power and the resources to make it a real-world experiment. Do you really Google doesn't have the arrogance, the hubris, and the power-lust to start implementing this?

      This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.

      They may "not plan on doing", but do they "plan on not doing"? Besides, to hear Google tell it, they planned to not be evil - and look at them now.

      Another non-story.

      Google has a history of at least trying out the wild shit their people dream up. And I'm pretty sure the insularity of Silly Valley's denizens renders many of them immune to the consideration that using the rest of as lab rats is in any way immoral or inappropriate. Even at that, this would be a non-story only if Google wasn't already fully capable of rolling out such a scheme in a short time frame.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    5. Re:If the method works... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      because of Seeber's Social Placebo Uncertainty Paradox: Letting the people know you are collecting data on them changes their response to the data.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:If the method works... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Probably because this was a thought experiment. This was a video that the source reports was released internally with the intention of showing unsettling things they do not plan on doing.

      And your confidence in this arises from Google pinky-swearing to that effect after the video was leaked?

    7. Re:If the method works... by houghi · · Score: 2

      They probably do. That is why they are making such a shitload of money. Oh you thought they developed prodcuts to please you as a customer?
      I have some bad news for you.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:If the method works... by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably because this was a thought experiment.

      That's irrelevant. The idea has been conceived and disseminated. The initial dissemination was among people with the power and the resources to make it a real-world experiment. Do you really Google doesn't have the arrogance, the hubris, and the power-lust to start implementing this?

      They have pretty much all the data they need to do this for some people. They have your search history, your email history, your SMS history, your phone calls and voicemails (google voice), your detailed location history, your purchase history, (google wallet) every photo you've taken in the past N years, all of your files in Google Drive, and more.

      They know more about you than Facebook.

    9. Re:If the method works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What total bullshit. If the intent of the video were to show what Google plans on not doing, it would have illustrated a corporate future that had no reliance on data collection whatsoever.

    10. Re:If the method works... by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The USA maintains contingency plans for invading Canada. It doesn't mean it intends to do so. Sometimes people just think of things and decide they are bad ideas.

    11. Re: If the method works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another google fan boi

  3. 1984 by Train0987 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    George Orwell was a visionary.

    1. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a time traveler...

    2. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno. The bad guys in Orwell's vision were blatant and obvious. The way social media companies are pushing their propaganda is much more subtle and insidious.

    3. Re:1984 by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People forget that in 1984 the power was given to Big Brother. It was not taken.
      How we give so freely what others have fought for so hard.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just a guy who read Aldous Huxley and Ygyny Zamyatin.

    5. Re:1984 by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Orwell's books were typically set in place long after everything was concrete and unchangable. As far as I know he didn't write a whole lot on how we got there, just where we wound up. Propoganda usually starts out subtle and slowly builds its way up to in your face you can't miss it unless you've never lived away from it.

    6. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure they tortured people into submitting, but sure, ok.

    7. Re:1984 by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2

      He applied linear thinking and took it to the extreme to make a good story. But societies go through cycles. The tide turned in 2016 -- perhaps as a consequence of the 2008 crash -- where people have rejected, democratically speaking, the vision that had been offered to them, of which this is a part. Try as he might have, Schmidt couldn't help Hillary win.

    8. Re:1984 by lgw · · Score: 2

      While that's an optimistic thought, 2016 was not a rejection of totalitarianism or post modernism, merely a rejection of the most corrupt presidential candidate in a century. There's little evidence thus far that people are rejecting identity politics, which is the lever by which modern totalitarians move themselves into power.

      Orwell, an ardent socialist, saw well the dangers socialism presented for descent into totalitarianism.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But Aldous Huxley painated a far more accurate picture ! (see "Brave New World")

      Facebook, Google etc. are akin to Soma !

    10. Re:1984 by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      I imagine that such a candidate was even offered as a choice in the first place was a direct reflection of the state we were in -- totalitarian-leaning people thought they could get away with it. If so then Hillary, endorsed by the likes of Schmidt, was part of the package that was rejected, which maybe includes identity politics as well. That's at least the rationalization for my optimism.

      Also there was Brexit...

    11. Re:1984 by RobinH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1984 was about absolute and total control through fear, whilst Brave New World was all about social engineering. In 1984 there's also some controlling of what people thought too, but Brave New World is much closer.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    12. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that's an optimistic thought, 2016 was not a rejection of totalitarianism or post modernism, merely a rejection of the most corrupt presidential candidate in a century.

      Warren Harding was 1920, you meant to say almost a century. Unfortunately, despite Trump's rejection by a plurality, he still got into office, and is even now taking open bribes.

      There's little evidence thus far that people are rejecting identity politics, which is the lever by which modern totalitarians move themselves into power.

      Had a five minute conversation with the average vote recently?

      Orwell, an ardent socialist, saw well the dangers socialism presented for descent into totalitarianism.

      Nope. Not Socialism.

      The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

      You should read more carefully.

      The book's warning was about that.

      Not about socialism.

    13. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People forget that in 1984 the power was given to Big Brother. It was not taken.
      How we give so freely what others have fought for so hard.

      In 1984 the original revolutionaries are bumpes off, which sounds like taking it. But then 1984 is about what would happen with three autocratic regimes like the USSR under Stalin, with a bit of sci-fi thrown in, to shine a light on that autocracy.

      With some irony, Eric Blair worked for the secret services, it seems.

    14. Re: 1984 by lgw · · Score: 1

      Warren Harding was 1920, you meant to say almost a century

      Good point, if debatable as to the degree of corruption. Certainly comparable.

      Unfortunately, despite Trump's rejection by a plurality, he still got into office, and is even now taking open bribes.

      Interesting theory. Does it involve shape-shifting Reptoids?

      Had a five minute conversation with the average vote recently?

      Yes, and most of them seem to openly embrace the premise of identity politics. Plenty of exceptions, though.

      Nope. Not Socialism.

      The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

      You should read more carefully.

      The book's warning was about that.

      Not about socialism.

      Orwell has explicitly written that 1984, like Animal Farm, was about how a socialist government can fall to totalitarianism. Just as Animal Farm was a warning about the betrayal from within, as the revolutionaries fall to the lure of power, 1984 was a warning about the danger that, no matter how pure of heart your socialist revolutionaries, there will be others, not at all pure, attracted to the concentration of power. The tools of socialism look a lot like the tools of totalitarianism, after all, so it's a question of trusting those who get their hands on those tools.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's little evidence thus far that people are rejecting identity politics,

      I'd say there's no evidence of that.

      Democrats have tripled down on identity politics in the wake of Trump.

      And the Republicans, being Republicans, are a ton of minor factions - most of which also play the identity politics game - united only by a few policies and hatred of the Democrats.

    16. Re: 1984 by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The tools of socialism are the tools of totalitarianism. The fact that some Socialist states haven't reached that point is irrelevant. But once they do reach a certain state, the process is irreversible, and unstable.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re: 1984 by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd say that the tools of totalitarianism are the tools of socialism taken farther. E.g., Britain's panopticon and social media police are the tools of totalitarianism, but Britain was socialist for decades before things got that bad. Sure, though, merely a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Animal Farm

    19. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tools of socialism are the tools of totalitarianism.

      There have been socialist totalitarian states, socialist non-totalitarian states, non-socialist and non-totalitarian states, and non-socialist totalitarian states. This would seem to suggest that the tools of totalitarianism are the tools of totalitarians.

      The fact that some Socialist states haven't reached that point is irrelevant.

      It would seem highly relevant to your argument, and to the people living in those states.

      But once they do reach a certain state, the process is irreversible, and unstable.

      How can it be both irreversible and unstable? How do you explain times when repressive states have become less so?

    20. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warren Harding was 1920, you meant to say almost a century

      Good point, if debatable as to the degree of corruption. Certainly comparable.

      It's your suggested example, after all. If you had wanted to say, pick James G. Blaine or Chester Arthur, you should have known to have gone with over a century, and I didn't want to think that poorly of you.

      Amusing thing about Harding's victory though, he had gained a massive number of votes over the previous election, but despite claims of a landslide, more of the vote for his opponent was in territory he had won than otherwise.

      Unfortunately, despite Trump's rejection by a plurality, he still got into office, and is even now taking open bribes.

      Interesting theory. Does it involve shape-shifting Reptoids?

      No, that's Trump's latest claim about Hillary to distract from the steady revelation of malfeasance on his party.

      It's hilarious that even the vaunted Giuliani (a terrible lawyer to have) has resorted to claims that the President can't be indicted as a defense. Remember the last President who relied upon that? Took a pardon.

      Had a five minute conversation with the average vote recently?

      Yes, and most of them seem to openly embrace the premise of identity politics. Plenty of exceptions, though.

      Indeed, there is a level of outrage was listening to my local Congressman's phone conference, and the number of them wanting to punish liberals, Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi, well, it was several in a row that basically asked "How can they be allowed to exist" and even the Representative was getting uncomfortable. He was at a loss for how to mollify them without seeming to go along with their desired sentiments of oppressing those who disagreed.

      Orwell has explicitly written that 1984, like Animal Farm, was about how a socialist government can fall to totalitarianism. Just as Animal Farm was a warning about the betrayal from within, as the revolutionaries fall to the lure of power, 1984 was a warning about the danger that, no matter how pure of heart your socialist revolutionaries, there will be others, not at all pure, attracted to the concentration of power. The tools of socialism look a lot like the tools of totalitarianism, after all, so it's a question of trusting those who get their hands on those tools.

      Orwell explicitly wrote "1984" and explicitly wrote the line I quoted(he knew what he was talking about, hopefully, though I've seen some writings that I could believe didn't, so I suppose I could be forlorn), but really, you're confusing the "tools of socialism" when it's actually just "tools of power" and that impediment is what's really hindering your expression. Animal Farm is similarly applicable, it isn't "socialist revolutionaries" but far more broader.

      I suggest you read some other dystopian books such as "The Iron Heel" and "It Can Happen Here" and "The Handmaid's Tale" so you broaden your perspective and undertake it in your writing. You could also watch Shakespeare's "Henry VI" for an example that's an even older precedent. Or the Holy Bible. Or the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's older than mere "socialism" but instead a far broader pattern.

      Or watch Fate/Stay Night, it tells you the same story, and it's very new so you might relate to it better.

      Don't be confused like the die-hard ideologue Archangel_Michael, who vehemently chases the nature in the wrong direction, it isn't a difference of degree, but no difference at all, instead a similarity of kind that is to worry about. And not the kind you think.

      That puts you more at risk since you can be baited by that lack of perception.

    21. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's equivalent to how ESPN portrays Lebron James as the second coming. The endless infomercial/ one-sided Fox-News-type of hype eventually leads some people to believe that he's even better than Michael Jordan. It's a complete joke, but one that's not even funny.

      Then you have a president in the United States that's so completely out of whack that people growing up in this era and not remember previous administrations would think that this is the norm

    22. Re: 1984 by lgw · · Score: 1

      f you had wanted to say, pick James G. Blaine or Chester Arthur, you should have known to have gone with over a century, and I didn't want to think that poorly of you.

      I have to call you out on this. Chester A Arthur is likely the least corrupt president we've had. He ran in the primary as the corruption candidate, but when he was VP and James Garfield was assassinated, he immediately flipped to the anti-corruption position that Garfield had held, at the clear risk to his own life, simply to make it clear that US policy will never be controlled by assassins.

      Politicians today are simply not made of the same stuff.

      You seem to be ignoring the fact that we don't have to guess why Orwell wrote 1984: he told us directly that it was about how socialism can go wrong. You're saying "but that wasn't socialism", and yes, that was the damn point of the book: it had gone wrong. FFS, man.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:1984 by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      You can find how we got to 1984 in the book -- you just have to look.

      The never-ending war between Oceana and Eurasia/Eastasia was justification for the erosion of civil liberties. Since it was perpetual, no civil rights ever returned under the guise of helping winning the war.

      If Orwell would have seen just a little more clearly, he would have called this war "the war on terrorism".

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    24. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget the race to the bottom, which ensures this, otherwise you starve. Even in socialist Europe, you lose state funding after 2 years of unemployment (usually, or if you're a business owner, you forfeit all employee rights). The way it's going with glorification of "Cloud" and unprecedented centralization, they'll probably bring back the "poor houses" again, in order to replace former employees somewhere.

    25. Re:1984 by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      The saddest thing about Google Home and Amazon Echo is that people actual pay for the privilege to be monitored.

    26. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to call you out on this.

      What? Offering the speculation that you would have known to refer to over a century for candidates from the 1880s? That seems odd. Do you not like being given credit for sufficient intelligence not to make such a dumb mistake? But you seem somewhat confused, I'm not advocating anything, I'm observing your words. And I have to call you out on your own words.

      merely a rejection of the most corrupt presidential candidate in a century.

      Emphasis mine. That was your choice, and I'm assuming it was deliberate. I give you that much credit.

      Chester A Arthur is likely the least corrupt president we've had. He ran in the primary as the corruption candidate, but when he was VP and James Garfield was assassinated, he immediately flipped to the anti-corruption position that Garfield had held, at the clear risk to his own life, simply to make it clear that US policy will never be controlled by assassins.

      So you admit he was a corruption candidate then? One would wonder why you're protesting it then. Do note, as I pointed out already, your word choice was candidate, not President. I've been going with that initial decision of your own, and assuming you were only off by four years, not several decades.

      Is this giving you too much credence?

      Politicians today are simply not made of the same stuff.

      One would hope not. There are many things that might be fair for their day which would not be remotely acceptable today. So change is inevitable. That, and of course, parties change their political positions quite considerably, just consider the voting turnout in the 1880s, for quick reference, versus today. Or the actions of Congress. Who was calling for high tariffs back then? Hmm...

      Of course, you could also consider the amount of grand-standing buffoonery from those same politicians back then, and say that things haven't really changed at all.

      You seem to be ignoring the fact that we don't have to guess why Orwell wrote 1984: he told us directly that it was about how socialism can go wrong.

      You seem to be ignoring the point, perhaps because of your own focus, that it wasn't socialism, that we don't have to guess what Orwell said in 1984, because I already quoted it. I'll do so again:

      The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

      They weren't even claiming to be Socialists, they were unabashed oligarchs, sneeringly uncontrite in their corruption and malfeasance. Orwell was certainly right about that, but again, he was hardly bringing up a new idea, as I pointed out, you can find it directly in the Bible, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Greek and Roman Drama, and Shakespeare. And even Orwell was immediately preceded by Sinclair Lewis, Jack London, and even the Marx Brothers. Have you not seen the Great Dictator?

      You're saying "but that wasn't socialism", and yes, that was the damn point of the book: it had gone wrong. FFS, man.

      You seem to be intent on treating "socialism" as the wrong, when very clearly, the problems as found in 1984 are quite distinguishable from what constitutes socialism, as they are evident and obvious in a variety of systems, and have been for several millennia.

      It would really help you if you could reflect on that, and see the problem is not in the stars, but in ourselves. Try considering how adamant Archangel Michael is being on haranguing "socialism" and assess your assertion about it being a difference in degree, rather than a similarity of kind.

    27. Re: 1984 by lgw · · Score: 1

      You are unable to distinguish between what a character in a book said, and what the author said about that book. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I am now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are unable to distinguish between what a character in a book said, and what the author said about that book.

      Oh, are you referring to Niven's Law:

      "There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."

      Not only am I familiar with it, I'm not confused at all, I am quite obviously distinguishing between what Orwell's character said, and Orwell's own opinions and beliefs. So your failure to apprehend that, is another fault of your own. I have tried to give you a lot of leeway, but perhaps that was mistaken. You may be more deeply confused than I realized.

      As I said, though, there's no just doubt that Orwell wrote what I explicitly quoted from him in the book, 1984, it's a direct quote. You can't argue it successfully, and if you denied it, the best excuse I could give you is that you somehow got exposed to an expurgated version and didn't realize it.

      I'll repeat it once more:

      The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

      His exact words as written, and quite clearly, that's not socialism. They're an oligarchy. Who goal? Is baldly stated: The acquisition of power. You could accurately describe it many ways, the lust for power, arrogance, authoritarianism, or any number of terms, but socialism? Nope, never was, never will be.

      I know, I know, you've probably been ruthlessly subjected to individuals railing about the evils of socialism, denouncing it, decrying it, but their mistake is not understanding the real fault lies elsewhere.

      That's why they too often fail to understand their own creeping tendencies towards oppression and tyranny.

      That's the lesson George Orwell was endeavoring to teach. Though perhaps like Upton Sinclair regarding the Jungle, he missed his target. That's why you erroneously think he said one thing, when he quite clearly said another.

      Not the first time that's happened, nor the last that it will.

      At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I am now dumber for having listened to it.

      Instead it appears your own apprehensions seem to be at fault. Perhaps you are indeed succumbing to an onslaught of idiocy as you claim, though of a different type than the aforementioned one from Niven.

      I'd suggest you find somebody in person to help you remedy for it. There are many options and facilities, including your local library, religious institutions, some political activity groups, and even the occasional medical professional.

      Of course, like all things, I do recommend caution, as not all that claim to be helpful will, and even the wisest among us cannot see all ends, and not all are as wise as they think themselves to be.

      I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      You should be more concerned for your own, too many people, as the Bible says, see the mote in another's eye, but never concern themselves the beam in their own.

      Hence my advice to you above, consult for your own sake, if you are careful, and receive the help you need, it will benefit you.

    29. Re: 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Obama is not the president anymore....

  4. Less future more present by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google and Youtube already "nudge users into alignment with their goals" by manipulating search results, pushing sites/producers with opinions they prefer and hiding those they disagree with.

    I suppose 2018 is the future they were thinking about in 2016.

    1. Re:Less future more present by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its a shaping tool. First you feed the person only the things that they believe. After awhile you slowly start feeding them the things you want them to believe by giving them things that like minded people believe that fit your plan. Slowly you shape their world view to the one you want.

    2. Re:Less future more present by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Probably so. Probably also why I'm searching with bing more often now, too.

      I remember the old days when google's search interface had an actual search language, with a bunch of operators that I could use to search for what I wanted. Almost none of that exists anymore, now instead of searching for what I want, I can only search for whatever google's interests are that share half the keywords. Weak sauce. Very weak sauce.

      That they consider it an improvement just guarantees that they learn my preferences by learning which of their services I'm no longer willing to consider using.

    3. Re: Less future more present by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Yup, I too remember when Google was actually *good* for searching the internet. Ah the good old days...

  5. Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Start with "don't be evil"
    ends up with a terrifying Big Brother-y quasi police state* 'managing' everyone's behavior "for the public good, of course Mr Smith"

    *you might say that Google is merely gathering data and at most 'nudging' behavior. I'd say that when Google can concatenate & save forever EVERYTHING YOU DO to a degree that would make FB and Cambridge Analytica (you know, the guys being publicly lynched for doing exactly this?) blush, and use that data against you in ways ranging from subtle to blatant including simply handing your data over to authorities, then yeah, I'm going to call that a quasi-police state whose 'public/private' partnership borders on Fascism.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

      One of the things that struck me most about all the panic around Cambridge Analythica is that what they did wasn't all that different from what much bigger companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter have been doing for well over a decade and making quite a lot of money on. Only significant differences I can think of are that they were much smaller, didn't actually collect the data themselves and analyzed the data just for external clients rather than their own gain.

      Particularly Facebook behaving the way they did, acting like they're not in the exact same business, absolutely reeked of hypocrisy.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    3. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by burtosis · · Score: 2

      I'd say that when Google can concatenate & save forever EVERYTHING YOU DO to a degree that would make FB and Cambridge Analytica (you know, the guys being publicly lynched for doing exactly this?) blush, and use that data against you in ways ranging from subtle to blatant including simply handing your data over to authorities, then yeah, I'm going to call that a quasi-police state whose 'public/private' partnership borders on Fascism.

      I'm actually concerned that people's data will be used against them to derive more than just a social score like China. Imagine if the Nazis had access to what religion, ethnicity, and political leanings of all within its borders who were tracked in real time - the damage that could be wrought would be far, far greater. There is the finnancial havoc you could wreak as well given the ability to effectively use this data. There needs to be more oversight and counterbalance to this because there is no putting the genie back in the bottle and if we don't push hard it will be forever consolidated into the hands of a few individuals and the idea that it will be used altruistically instead of maliciously for personal profit is fanciful . Even after Cambridge Analytica I still have difficulty getting people to understand why thier data privacy is important.

    4. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know I wonder if there will ultimately be a penalty for not allowing yourself to be "nudged".

      It is a time when everyone else is being nudged and being nudged unequivocally leads to the greater good. Why would you not allow yourself to be nudged? If you aren't nudged then it is not for the greater good and therefor you must pay a penalty. Avoiding your nudge is like, smoking or public intoxication. Sure people do it, some of the cool people. But it certainly is frowned upon as you can get fine or even picked up!

      Don't begrudge the nudge!

    5. Re: Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Troll

      Imagine if the Nazis had access to what religion, ethnicity, and political leanings of all within its borders who were tracked in real time - the damage that could be wrought would be far, far greater.

      Don't worry; social justice warriors would have taken to the streets demanding safe spaces for gypsies and homosexuals.

      The Jews would have still been fucked though.

    6. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by anegg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Only significant differences I can think of are that they were much smaller, didn't actually collect the data themselves and analyzed the data just for external clients rather than their own gain.

      You forgot about the part where they data was used to the possible benefit of conservative politicians instead of for liberal objectives. I'm not sure that that wasn't what goaded some folks into being really upset.

    7. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty particularly Facebook, who is known to censor all kinds of things for various autocratic governments, has provided their services to conservatives and are just more hush-hush about it than Cambridge Analythica was.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    8. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by alexo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's objectionable when the Russians do it, it should be equally objectionable when Google does it.

    9. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their stated goal is to use this power to solve global poverty and disease. By any measure, that is not evil. The objection people have to this is that they lose agency to something or someone else. These tech companies are a true meritocracy where only the best and more educated citizens can make decisions. They do not need to play to the lowest common denominator like politicians in representative governments do (MAGA). This foolish slogan is a clear example of how far down the ladder we have fallen as a society. When was America greater than it is now? What mythic past (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism) are they attempting to cultivate here? Most people who use the word Fascist have no idea what it means and use it interchangeably for tyranny or the political opposition.

      The bottom line is this, social media is one of the best mirrors that we have created as a society to look at ourselves. Facebook is blamed for failings of human character. In reality, Facebook is forcing us to confront who we really are. We don't like what we see and people generally don't take this as a queue for self improvement. Rather, they take it as an excuse to revel in hatred and fear (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/technology/sri-lanka-facebook-shutdown.html).

    10. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only significant differences I can think of are that they were much smaller, didn't actually collect the data themselves and analyzed the data just for external clients rather than their own gain.

      You forgot about the part where they data was used to the possible benefit of conservative politicians instead of for liberal objectives. I'm not sure that that wasn't what goaded some folks into being really upset.

      There were a lot of better options than Donald Trump, and conservatives of every stripe have plenty of room to be upset too. I don't exactly remember a Republican establishment love-fest over Trump during the primaries, but the Republican party is bigger than one bad president, they'll get through this.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

    11. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It doesn't matter what got people upset. What matters is that Cambridge Analytical definitely DID collect data themselves. It was not foist upon them. They did so in violation of Facebook's policies and in violation of what people generally feel is a correct manner. They committed fraud as they misrepresented in order to obtain something of value.

      How some people even stand themselves. How can you stand being a part of such senselessness. Surely saying things like "and analyzed the data just for external clients rather than their own gain" doesn't get past anyone honest with even a modicum of intellect. If you do something for a paying client then you have served your own self interest of course.

      Do you even have a line of incoherence and insanity that you won't cross in your bizarre need to be subservient to the worst in our society? Supporting such blatant incoherent lying does violence to your own psyche.

    12. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the part where they data was used to the possible benefit of conservative politicians instead of for liberal objectives. I'm not sure that that wasn't what goaded some folks into being really upset.

      Words have meanings. Please don't call a cut-throat predatory capitalist "conservative" since conservation is the exact opposite to further tilting the tables. White male supremacy fantasies also are not "conservative" but recidivistic.

    13. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      "Their stated goal is to use this power to solve global poverty and disease. By any measure, that is not evil."

      Nonsense. The devil is certainly in the implementation.
      If one 'solved' poverty by killing all the poor people, it would CERTAINLY be evil.
      If one 'solved' disease by eugenically breeding superhumans, it would pretty likely be evil AF.

      So no, I don't buy your initial premise, nor most of the rest of your post.

      People are MOST CERTAINLY entitled to be upset at losing agency; the premise of democracy is that everyone gets a say, not just a geniocracy run by the West-Coast intellectuals that work at google. You seem to like pure meritocracies? Should we have votes weighted by IQ? OK for you?

      Hint: by that *same* logic one could certainly argue that wealth accumulation is about as clear a measure of real-world practical smarts as any other yardstick; so anyone for plutocracy?

      --
      -Styopa
    14. Re: Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Let's call the experts a "soviet"

    15. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you understand the issue then. It wasn't CA that people had a problem with, it was Facebook selling user data wholesale to external parties. This is vastly different than Google's business model and vastly more of a privacy problem. Facebook should have done the analysis for CA internally and only sold them the anonymized results.

    16. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: by that *same* logic one could certainly argue that wealth accumulation is about as clear a measure of real-world practical smarts as any other yardstick; so anyone for plutocracy?

      You could argue that the moon is made of cheese and that the Earth is flat. Just like the above argument though, it just isn't true and you would lose that argument against anyone even remotely intelligent.

    17. Re: Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm yes they did. It was IBM. The invention of the punch card pioneered by IBM helped. Maybe not the inventor but used to catalog all citizens.

    18. Re: Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Russian troll.

    19. Re: Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      I'm curious why you describe it as a "quasi-police state". I don't see any "quasi" - it appears we have a full-on police state in America today.

      Government spying on *everyone*. (Reads your mail, listens to your phone calls, tracks your every move.)
      Stalin-sized Gulag.
      Torture.
      Coerced false confessions ("plea bargains").
      Ultraviolent police, equipped and trained as an occupying army.
      Heavy censorship (FB, Twatter, GOOG).
      Fortified borders to keep us in.

      What, if anything, is missing? We totally qualify as a police state today.

    20. Re:Isn't that pretty much the story of things? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      ...which would suggest that the logic for the original argument was stupid.

      Which was my point.

      QED.

      --
      -Styopa
  6. FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1.) Run your own little server behind your DSL Modem. Starts at $30, called Raspberry PI.
    2.) Store your data on your private server. Control access/encipher via SSH/SCP.
    3.) Run your own discussion forums.
    4.) Run Linux on your PC instead of the Snoop-Ware of MSFT.
    5.) Run your own Jabber server instead of Corporate-Controlled Whatsapp and the like.

    1. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also help out and run yacy.net

    2. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's up with yacy? last I saw there hadn't been updates in a while. I'm wondering how secure it is if peer to peer communication is not encrypted.

    3. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was sad the FreedomBox never took off.

    4. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      This is bullshit. To do any of this, you have to run a static IP, which is still prohbited by many ISPs for consumer accounts. Sure you can pay more for a business class service (more money for less speed, at least it is in my market) but your talk of 2 watts minimal cost is moot considering the additional cost of service. Running your own fileserver, discussion board, and jabber might be possible for you but impractical for most people; even those people in tech. And besides, who's going to sign in to your discussion board? That's what we call an "anti-social network". I had a friend try it once, and maybe 8 people used his board for about a year, then abandoned it out of boredom. When everything you proposed is available as a "one click install" and is as secure as the software and services provided by big companies such as microsoft/amazon/whoever, then you can hand-wave all you want about how easy it is.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    5. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Dynamic DNS is a thing.....

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re: FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run my own server and use Dyndns. Works like a charm. Sure as hell it is more secure than the MSFT crapola.

    7. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Zmobie · · Score: 1

      First off you really shouldn't comment on something you have exactly zero understanding on when it comes to hosting. As spire3661 said, dynamic DNS services are a thing and have been around for some time. Takes about 5 seconds to google that and if someone runs anything like what the OP was suggesting, they will find that out very quickly.

      Now, I will give you that it is highly impractical for everyone to run their own discussion boards, Jabber, etc. and it would totally defeat the purpose of half of it. A better option would be to have some type of distributed system where everyone handles their own data while being able to go out and aggregate other people's data for their viewing. Otherwise you have the problem of 8 people using the damn thing, or if one person hosts it everyone's data is still hosted by someone other than themselves and subject to the host's whims.

      That stuff could be a one click install if someone took the time to actually do it. However, many people that have the understanding to do so either do not have the time, do not have the inclination, or would simply rather feel superior to everyone else and reply with "you figure it out." You also alluded to one of the other problems indirectly. Those big companies make money off of providing easy solutions for these services. We are all trained (especially in the U.S.) to feel our time is worth something. Our knowledge can make that time exponentially more valuable too. Doing the one-click install would take quite a bit of time and knowledge and it is hard to find someone to do that for free. Due to those reasons, this becomes the difficult cycle to break. Conceptually we can come up with a lot of things, but figuring out implementation is still so highly undervalued by many.

      All that said, I agree in spirit with the OP that people should be more willing to take matters into their own hands, but in practice it is a whole different ball-game and I'd tend to agree with you more. I try to do whatever I can on my own, but time is by far my biggest constraint. This is why I pay someone to do my yard work, I pay someone to fix certain things when they break, and I pay someone for many of the goods that they produce. I could literally do all of those things myself (or at least learn to), but it is far simpler and more efficient if I just pay someone and continue producing the services/goods that I have much higher skill levels in (which happen to be technical for me, but this could apply to anyone). Which essentially boils down to the basic foundation of a currency based capitalist economy.

    8. Re: FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An Rpi running Raspian already does the most important thing:

      Secure and private storage of your files in the Internet.

      No need for a Marxist Cloud.

    9. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      You're telling me that I have no understanding of this??? What is the DNS propagation time for dynamic DNS changes? What is the expected gap in coverage when your IP changes relative to your expected consumer audience? Do you actually run dynamic DNS or did you just google that to throw it in my face?

      That stuff could be a one click install if someone took the time to actually do it.

      Then why does hardly anyone take the time to actually do it?

      You need to step out of your bubble for a minute and consider: What percentage of people on this planet (or your country of choice if you like) are even aware of what a Raspberry Pi is? I'd bet it's less than 5% Of the people who are aware, what percentage would be even remotely capable of attempting what OP proposes? Again, I'd argue maybe 5%. So when .25% of a given population is capable of doing what OP proposes, I find it offensive to pretend like it's common knowledge, say it's easily achieved, or act incredulous that nobody is doing it. I for one believe that the remaining 99.75% of the worlds population should be equally able to achieve a similar level of information independence.

      I'm speaking from experience here: I've tried, and I'm totally incapable of creating an independent, cross-platform, interoperable and secure software product that large amounts of people wish to use. If only I had a team of hundreds, perhaps thousands of software developers who were willing to help me build this product, and to do so without pay or adequate recognition.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    10. Re: FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can mail you a fully configured rpi flash chip ready to go (dyndns, web server, ssh port, jabber server) for less than 20 euros. Post your Email address here if interested.

      Also, you can visit the local Linux user group and ask one of the Old White Men to do it for you. I am sure you will succeed rather quickly.

    11. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Zmobie · · Score: 1

      You're telling me that I have no understanding of this??? What is the DNS propagation time for dynamic DNS changes? What is the expected gap in coverage when your IP changes relative to your expected consumer audience? Do you actually run dynamic DNS or did you just google that to throw it in my face?

      Apparently not because again, it takes 5 fucking second to look this up and read that it has a propagation time of less than a minute: https://dyn.com/dns/
      Given that the update is initiated from the client side in practice it is actually less most of the time. I have used it, colleagues and friends have used it, it is not that damn complicated. Stop acting like an ass because you got called out. I've implemented networking interfaces and equipment for MULTIPLE Fortune 500 customers so just shut up before you make yourself look like a bigger fool.

      Then why does hardly anyone take the time to actually do it?

      Pretty sure I addressed the exact reasons why people are not doing it all the time in my first post. Not really sure what you're getting at here. You're also vastly overestimating the complexity of such an endeavor. I have worked with and on build teams of no more than about 3 engineers that implemented a much more complex solution and the deployment times were approaching less than a day before I left. After learning WiX now myself, the deployment could actually have been a single installer if the team had taken the time. Not to mention, once it is done and stable there is this thing called imaging that works really nicely to create exact copies...

      You need to step out of your bubble for a minute and consider: What percentage of people on this planet (or your country of choice if you like) are even aware of what a Raspberry Pi is? I'd bet it's less than 5% Of the people who are aware, what percentage would be even remotely capable of attempting what OP proposes? Again, I'd argue maybe 5%. So when .25% of a given population is capable of doing what OP proposes, I find it offensive to pretend like it's common knowledge, say it's easily achieved, or act incredulous that nobody is doing it. I for one believe that the remaining 99.75% of the worlds population should be equally able to achieve a similar level of information independence.

      I'm speaking from experience here: I've tried, and I'm totally incapable of creating an independent, cross-platform, interoperable and secure software product that large amounts of people wish to use. If only I had a team of hundreds, perhaps thousands of software developers who were willing to help me build this product, and to do so without pay or adequate recognition.

      I never tried to say this is common knowledge or that the initial setup is super easy either. Hell I agreed with you that doing it as the OP suggests is impractical as hell and even mentioned the solutions were not optimal. Redeployment once created could be easy if people took the time and trusted the source of said deployment though, which was the second major point I was getting at.

    12. Re: FREEDOM COMPUTING by Zmobie · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but I wouldn't say that is a typical thing. In my experience people don't do that for free, but I'm not as involved in open source groups and such so my view could be distorted a bit.

    13. Re:FREEDOM COMPUTING by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      So you're telling me that DDNS propagates GLOBALLY in less than a minute? I understood that to be more like 24 hours (cite: https://www.google.com/search?...)... so I stand corrected. The last time I used a dynamic DNS service was about 6-7 years ago, and it was miserably unreliable at that time. I'm glad to hear it's improved. But it's also not free. This issue like the others circles back to the pretense that this a cheap and easy solution, when it is neither.

      I'm glad we both agree that regardless of the details, this isn't practical for the majority of people.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  7. Google Visioneyish Statement by Empiric · · Score: 1

    What is the maximizing stockholder wealth justification for "solving global problems like poverty and disease"?

    As much as tech companies may want to be a new religion, they aren't. The incentive models of capitalism support a limited scope of activity effectively.

    At least Bill Gates is honest in this regard--charitable focus requires an organizational structure supporting that. Corporate virtue signaling and technological handwaving aren't it.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    1. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Poor diseased people do not buy or watch Google ads. It is in our selfish self-interest to uplift developing countries so as to create new markets where to sell our stuff, new products and services to buy off of them, add manpower to the global research effort or whatever lofty goal you prefer.

    2. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      What is the maximizing stockholder wealth justification for "solving global problems like poverty and disease"?

      If you can mitigate/fix/whatever disease, which makes workers less productive, and make poor workers more productive, generating more wealth for themselves and others, governments will pay for that technology.

      Heck, simply knowing what the problem is gets you halfway to solving it. If the government is spending tons of money mitigating bird flu, which affects maybe a few dozen people a year, but, in aggregate, people miss hundreds of thousands of days of work from regular flu, then maybe some funds should shift to getting the flu vaccine out to more people.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by Empiric · · Score: 1

      You're conflating "our" abstract interests with Google stockholder interests.

      I'll leave aside the question of how specifically Google's data mining will "uplift" these countries. I'll even leave aside the question of how companies in general will do so.

      At least until you give me a reason not to consider your position summarily refuted by actual history and practice, with one simple link.

      The Marshall Plan actually "uplifted" countries devastated by World War Two. Companies did not volunteer to absorb these costs. This was not accomplished by the notion of "maximize our profits coming from your bombed out cities and crushed economies". It was done by providing help that was not profit maximized.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    4. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What is the maximizing stockholder wealth justification for "solving global problems like poverty and disease"?"

      Companies like Google hire people who are young and as a result a bit naive. The end goals are not necessarily the ones promoted to the rank and file. Every time I see some really idealistic internet thing I always look to see how its going to make a profit and if that conflicts with the idealistic claims I assume profit will win out.

      captcha : guilty

    5. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      Fun fact, nobody cares about America. The world is much better off today, with a lot less people living in poverty and cushy desk jobs for people who used to farm the land with medieval tools as recently as the 80s and 90s. Most of the world is thrilled about globalization. I myself made a pile of money as an online freelancer when I was younger.
      In Portugal, my day job is launching web pages for the developing countries we once colonized... as part of that, I need to know where to host things and how the network is laid out, to guarantee a decent load time. Google is setting up submarine cables in the southeast Asia / east Africa region, likely not out of the kindness of their hearts. They recently launched a new regional cloud server in India - and bear in mind I used to work for an Indian person who decided to get their MBA in Portugal for some reason. I quickly learned that people all over the world are trying to grab a foothold in this region because, duh, 2/3 of the world's population lives around India and China. Because it has the potential to grow explosively as their economy inevitably develops.
      Government intervention is very far from the point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    6. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by swb · · Score: 1

      Reduced social welfare costs should result in less government growth and reduced or at least not increasing levels of taxation.

      Lower or stable payroll taxes means reduced salary demands and higher profits?

      I'm not saying this isn't a flawed argument (government reducing taxes, etc) but from an economics standpoint, reducing social welfare externalities results in less drag and deadweight losses.

      There are probably other arguments, like turning impoverished people into Google customers which would be an expansionary benefit to shareholders.

    7. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Fun fact, nobody cares about America.

      Didn't read past that, but you might want to look it up. ;)

      Turns out, we're the most important country in the world, and even our enemies agree. You're just an idiot jousting with a windmill.

      If you ever get internet access, check to see what exists outside your tiny country. There is a whole big world out there, and wherever you're from, your countries significance in the world is very small. Railing at clouds doesn't change that in any way; you probably have no idea that sort of more serious complaints people have that are nevertheless insignificant to a country like the United States that so many people care so much about.

      The vast majority of people in the world wouldn't even be willing to take up arms and fight for their country! The US has 5% of the world population, and even Grandma is willing to fight to the death to protect it. And then consider that most countries in the world are also willing to fight to defend the US! Who defends you country, some bigger country that is tiny compared to the US and derives their protection from us? Thought so!

    8. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Heavily impoverished countries are generally countries where their governments would declare war on somebody trying to make their citizens lives better, not places that would pay to make their citizens lives better.

      I guess this is how they're going to do it; idiots like you will get sites that explain these things at the top of your search results, and they can just increase the volume until you stop saying such stupid shit.

    9. Re:Google Visioneyish Statement by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Only in a rich country with a strong system of civics.

      In poor countries that is often not the case at all, and the ruling class doesn't care about things like "less drag and deadweight losses," instead their focus is on maximizing the divide between the rich and the poor, by making sure the poor have maximized social welfare externalities. People don't care about money, they care about power, and people from rich countries measure power by their money. Governments in poor countries often measure their power by their ability to directly control the people, not by how much money they have; they already control all the money within their system, and can control any good or service offered in their country, without bothering to spend much money. If they had more money they'd just be at higher risk of being invaded by their neighbors.

      The only way for google to reduce poverty in those places is to convince people in rich countries that it is politically virtuous to invade poor countries and force individual economic freedom on them.

  8. FREEDOM COMPUTING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1.) Run your own little server behind your DSL Modem. An RPI server is $30. Leccy cost is minimal (2Watts)
    2.) Run your own file server on the RPI
    3.) Run your own Discussion Booard on the RPI
    4.) Run your own Jabber Server.
    5.) Show the middle finger to these evil Cultural Marxist Corporations !

  9. Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was nothing subtle in the firing of James Damore. Neither is the Censorship on Facebook "subtle".

    FREEDOM TECHNOLOGIES:

    +Jabber
    +YacY
    +ssh
    +scp
    +phpbb
    +irc

    1. Re: Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know any guys of any color who are centuries old. Do you?

    2. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Poor white guys. The centuries of constant oppression they have faced must be unbearable.

      Spotted the racist.

    3. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Totally. Pointing out that some alt-right snowflake is being a hypocrite is clearly racist. Is this Trump means when he calls someone a “stable genius?”

      Wow, not only did you drag race into this - thus demonstrating that you are, in fact, a racist, you pull irrational Trump-hate out of your rectal database and use it in an attempt to deflect and distract.

      I bet your feel you're smart, too. NB I didn't say "think". You're a poster child for Dunning-Kruger, aren't you?

      You unstable moron.

    4. Re:Really ? by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There was also no subtlety in Google firing this person. Strange how none of you Damore cry babies ever criticize Google for that firing. Because I’m sure the lack of outrage has nothing to do with this other person’s political views.

    5. Re: Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did I say a single person experienced centuries of oppression? Oh wait, I didn’t.

    6. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww. The poor triggered snowflake. Do we need to create you a safe space so you don’t get so butthurt?

    7. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you read more about this transgender person they fired you'd know he was extremely toxic. He was well-known for harassing people there and calling everyone nazis, etc. He was the embodiment of a hardcore SJW troll and furiously attacking people on their internal message boards, sending them death threats, and so on. Don't feel like googling the link but /. had a post about it a few months ago

    8. Re:Really ? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There was nothing subtle in the firing of James Damore. Neither is the Censorship on Facebook "subtle".

      FREEDOM TECHNOLOGIES:

      +Jabber +YacY +ssh +scp +phpbb +irc

      James Damore was an idiot. Your employer and coworkers don't give a fuck about your edgy opinions. They want to make as much money as possible, as easily as possible. If you get in the way of that, expect negative repercussions. Your workplace is not a debate club, social studies class, therapist's office or democracy. Shut up and do your job and things will likely work out fine.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    9. Re: Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was as much an idiot as anybody else who didn't cave in to powermongers. Like those who did not accept British rule and all of its corruption in the colonies.

      Damore exposed Google as being a power hungry oligarch shop. That is a great service to mankind.

      I replaced Google with Bing. Works good enough. I also use yandex then and now.

    10. Re:Really ? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      "False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors."

      Yes, the lack of outrage has nothing to do with this other person's political views.

    11. Re:Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I exist, therefore your idiotic claim is false. You think that nobody had an opinion on the disabled, queer, transgender person who was fired too? That's like, all we talk about here.

    12. Re: Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #RacistProgressive

    13. Re: Really ? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Lick those Capitalist boots!

    14. Re: Really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the Irish and the Slavs and many other white people who were enslaved.

    15. Re: Really ? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Lick those Capitalist boots!

      Lick my ass; you know nothing about me.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  10. Actually be evil? by sinij · · Score: 2

    So they finally switched to "Be evil?"

    1. Re:Actually be evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They switched to "Do the right thing" with the creation of Alphabet Inc. Of course the definition of "right thing" is purely up to the Minitrue.

    2. Re:Actually be evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think you actually have to tell people "don't be evil," you obviously are too evil yourself to know what is evil and what's not.

    3. Re:Actually be evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they finally switched to "Be evil?"

      As a de facto monopolist, maintaining non-evilness cannot be consolidated with their fiducial duty of shareholder value maximization. People cannot go elsewhere anyway. It's sort of ironic that they let Marissa Mayer (who coined the "don't be evil" motto now retired with the move to "Alphabet") be among the final coffin nails of YAHOO!, one of the few remaining competitors while it was still alive.

    4. Re:Actually be evil? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Or, this is just some blah-blah by a person whose job at google actually just design.

  11. Insidious and evil by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".

    The point being, the republic was set up to aspire to higher goals than can be achieved by pure democracy alone. We have people in power who are not bound by the will of the people, they can vote their conscience based on what they think is right. We take guidance from a bunch of enlightened people 250 years ago who set up basic guidelines to do this.

    The idea of a bunch of like-minded people getting together and trying to "nudge users into alignment with their goals" is the same thing, it's "two wolves and a sheep" writ large.

    We're seeing this today with the changes in user policy. YouTube used to be a bastion of free speech, everything that wasn't explicitly illegal was allowed... until that changed, and you can no longer talk about guns, or have conservative views, or cast aspersions on certain races or religions. (But it's OK when those races or religions cast aspersions back.)

    Their goals are well-meaning today so that people will get behind the efforts and help, tomorrow their goals may be different.

    Even when you agree with their goals, not everyone agrees with their proposed solutions - and yet they still try to influence public debate. Climate change is one of these issues, where a lot of people would agree that it's a problem and something should be done, if only the solutions weren't politically motivated.

    What they are proposing is control over social thought. Unlike PACs or advertising, it's done without oversight or transparency. We complain about PACs not having enough transparency, and not knowing who pays for political ads - are we going to allow Google to be similarly opaque?

    Next election it won't be "Russians hacked the election", it'll be "Google hacked the election".

    Nudging behaviour like this is insidious and evil.

    1. Re:Insidious and evil by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Next election it won't be "Russians hacked the election", it'll be "Google hacked the election".

      Next election?

      What's interesting to me is that Google, Facebook, etc. have already been trying this. It's no secret who's side they have been on, and no doubt that they have been "nudging" (as blatantly as they could have? maybe not, but nudging for sure).

      It may have worked, in 2012. It failed, in 2016. What interests me is why/how it failed.

      Is Trump just The Mule or something, a one time anomaly? Or are we more reliant against this stuff than previously thought?

    2. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But searching for that headline will yield "No results found".

    3. Re:Insidious and evil by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2

      Their goals are well-meaning today so that people will get behind the efforts and help, tomorrow their goals may be different.

      EXACTLY! This is what the SJW's asking for more government intervention never seem to grasp. Today's noble cause is tomorrow's tool of the oppressor/tyrant. Those who want to empower the government (and/or large corps with government's help) to effect social change refuse to understand this.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    4. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bit deeper then that. I don't know what group of people are driving it but I can describe it. The more I look at especially some of the "synergies" between laws in countries that would otherwise be completely opposite, the more it becomes obvious there has been a serious push for globalization. It's to the point we don't have one, but MANY draconian laws straight out of batshit crazy countries, being passed with little to no discussion. It's like we're being prepped for habitation by the "royal families". Without laws controlling speech, freedom of thought, etc Heavily Muslim dominated places like India and UAE, but also China. Massive population shifts, all buying up property and businesses while systematically removing rent controls. Basically forcing locals out.

      The old world money from Oil and Gold mixed with seriously inflated markets is what has allowed it to happen. If some Saudi wanted Slashdot gone it would be overnight. It's no different then their ability to pay thousands of people to sway opinions. It costs them pennies.

    5. Re:Insidious and evil by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      That was supposed to be resilient, not "reliant".

    6. Re:Insidious and evil by anegg · · Score: 1

      What they are proposing is control over social thought. Unlike PACs or advertising, it's done without oversight or transparency. We complain about PACs not having enough transparency, and not knowing who pays for political ads - are we going to allow Google to be similarly opaque?

      Much of the problem comes down to the transparency/visibility of the process. Open political debate depends on knowing who is proposing what, and being able to understand their motives. When the "nudging" and other pressures are being done behind the scenes, with a lack of transparency, and no information about motives, then the foundations of a free society are in jeopardy. Unfortunately, many who are in political power try to deliberately obfuscate their actions and motives, precisely because they know it will be more difficult to achieve their objectives if they don't. This is why we the people need to maintain a healthy cynicism about ALL political power.

    7. Re:Insidious and evil by alexo · · Score: 1

      We have people in power who are not bound by the will of the people, they can vote their conscience

      People that have a conscience do not rise to positions of power.

    8. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never actually witness someone argue against themselves before. Interesting trick.

    9. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with a lot you are saying, other than you have recast "solutions that have a chance of success given current technology" into "solutions that are politically motivated". The translation I hear when someone rolls out "solutions that are politically motivated" is "we shouldn't do anything till I am dead". Not saying the latter out loud is a coward's position.

      What this form Google has proposed is effectively the role that organized religion previously played in human society since the Pyramids, Stonehenge and the first temples before that. Not saying it doesnt scare the crap out of me ... just stating the obvious.

    10. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a complete fucking idiot would think the election of Trump was an indication of being "reliant against" meddling by big data and social media.

    11. Re:Insidious and evil by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".

      The old saying is from someone who doesn't understand game theory. The outcome of such a vote would be that the stronger wolf would be eaten. The weaker wolf knows that it would be dinner tomorrow if it eats the sheep, the sheep knows that it has a better chance of running away from just the weaker wolf than from either both wolves today or the stronger wolf tomorrow.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Insidious and evil by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      "The point being, the republic was set up to aspire to higher goals than can be achieved by pure democracy alone. We have people in power who are not bound by the will of the people, they can vote their conscience based on what they think is right. We take guidance from a bunch of enlightened people 250 years ago who set up basic guidelines to do this."

      Good post; I would only append that the FF who wrote the constitution were *very* aware of this, and (tried, at least) wrote a constitution which was in every sense designed to be a very strict fence on federal government behavior. States could do much what they pleased as long as they stayed within the basic bounds established by the federal constitution, but the federal gov't was meant to be basically a clearing house for national diplomacy, military, and a few other VERY LIMITED functions. (The thought being that people could 'vote with their feet' if a state's behavior was excessive or unpleasant.)

      And now we have a Federal gov't telling people how high their doorknobs have to be.

      We might have lost the point of the constitution long ago.

      --
      -Styopa
    13. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, I can't read your comment without thinking it's completely silly.

      If you had said "people with a conscience are less likely to rise to positions of power" or "people without conscience are more common in position of power" or anything of the sort, you *might* have some ground to stand on. But this blanket statement of "conscience=no power" shows that you have no understanding of how the world works.

      I get that you might be angry at how the world is working and that it is causing you to have more extreme views of it. I also get that often, the way things work, people that only care about getting ahead will have an advantage over others. But good people do rise to positions of power too. And they do what they can to make the world a better place.

      However, that doesn't mean that all of them will do what you would like them too. People see things differently so, even if they all care about good, they won't all agree on the proper course of action. That doesn't make them bad people.

      There are good people in positions of power and your inability to see it (possibly because they don't share all your opinions) is depressing.

    14. Re:Insidious and evil by Shotgun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I personally believe that we are resilient to this sort of manipulation. Humans are a naturally suspicious species, and these manipulations never seem to "feel right". For instance, my "feel" of the global warming debate:

      OMG! The world is getting too hot! It's our fault! Let us have control!
        Wait!? What!? CO2 is a trace element that has barely moved up, and we only have a small amount of accurate data composed of a few years over a limited area. Can we have a look at your data?
        HELL NO! I'm the EXPERT! You have to trust me, 'cause I'm the only one able to interpret the data. Now, do as I say!
        But, we have other people who are also experts at data analysis that claim your methods are faulty. Why should we believe you?
        YOU'RE EVIL AND STUPID, AND YOU'RE PAID OFF BY OIL COMPANIES! I'M AN HONEST AND PRISTINE ACADEMIC! ONLY I HAVE THE ANSWERS! Now, submit to my taxes!

      In this case, it wasn't the data that sways a person who can't analyze the data one way or the other. It is the over the top reactions that just don't sit right and create doubt. Humans are great at picking up on that subtle incongruity. The liberals won't admit it, but we get that they're trying to take control and force their views on the rest of us, and therefore we're willing to vote for an iconoclast like Trump to avoid it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    15. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the late 1780s just after the Constitution was framed, under 10% of the population was eligible to vote.

    16. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that we've all seen this before. The SJWs used to be called Christians, and most twisted of them would even use the term "Christian Conservative" even though they were radical left in their attitude about what the relationship between government and people should be.

      They do/did exactly the same thing: try to expand the government's power to enforce their religious beliefs. And everyone hated it.

      So try a different religion and people will hate it less? Um, no. They hate it just as much, maybe even more. Same strategy, different values.

      The solution is to vote for conservatives, but you have to avoid the people who call themselves conservatives because it's almost always a lie. (That's how Republicans keep getting in.) You have to look at how they act and really listen to what they say, and most importantly: you have to judge them. If you won't judge, then you can't vote effectively.

    17. Re:Insidious and evil by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that we've all seen this before.

      If you mean "Christians" in the sense (and time frame) of The Crusades then you'd be correct.

      A far more recent example would be the Communist Revolution in Russia around the turn of the century. They promised the overthrow of an (admittedly) corrupt and failing monarchy would usher in a socialist Utopia free of class distinction. In reality they replaced the monarchy with a ruling elite that was just as bad or worse. The problem is most people don't want true freedom. True freedom requires you take responsibility for your actions, that there are consequences both good and bad which are inescapable. What they really want is freedom from responsibility of those actions, something fundamentally impossible. The elites knew that then and they know it now, hence they use the lure of false freedom to manipulate those too ignorant to realize it.

      Sad thing is I don't see people getting any less ignorant. If anything the trend is increasing thanks in no small part to an education system which discourages critical thinking and won't tolerate dissenting ideologies.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    18. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying that people vote in their best interests? Haha!

    19. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you check out the prisoner's dilemma, which shows that two completely rational individuals, even when it seems in their best interest to do so.
      Or
      Its better to get half a sheep to day and let tomorrow take care of itself.

    20. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try but your game theory model is missing a rule. If the vote goes against the stronger wolf, he will reject the outcome by claiming the vote was rigged and if that fails he will attempt a coup and take power for himself, make the weaker wolf his deputy, and eat the sheep anyway.

    21. Re:Insidious and evil by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      The best propaganda is always that which subtly manipulates the emotions of those exposed to it. "I may not remember what you said, but I remember how you made me feel" is the principle behind it, and your post seems like a fine example of it in action. Strong emotional reactions put up barriers to what would otherwise be reasonable arguments.

    22. Re:Insidious and evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do humans act rational rather than tribal in decision making? Understanding game theory does not help a whole lot in understanding human history.

    23. Re:Insidious and evil by mrwireless · · Score: 1

      This is why I love Slashdot. Thanks for this!

  12. SF homeless people are the decent people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It looks to me like the only decent people in SF are the homeless people. They are far more in touch with human decency than anyone else who lives there. :-(

    1. Re:SF homeless people are the decent people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, people who work for Google and live in SF make up a large proportion of the homeless there, thanks to the NIMBYs blocking all housing development...

    2. Re:SF homeless people are the decent people by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you ever learn how to use the internet, you should look up a map of the Bay Area and find out if Google is from San Francisco, or some other place.

  13. Psychohistory? by Edweirdo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is Hari Seldon running Google now?

    --
    Life is too short and too important to { take seriously | use windows }.
  14. Technocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nick Foster would seem to be aspiring technocrat. Read about Technocracy if you want to know more about this mind set. You should also look into Progressivism and Communitarianism. These three ideologies are being blended together and slowly woven into the governing of the world's member states. These ideologies invariably necessitate the existence of a strong over-arching state and the removal of the idea of personal liberty and natural rights to accomplish their ends.

  15. BINGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Super rich people like Brin, Zuckerberg, Gates like to venture into politics as soon as they realize they have all you can buy for money. Top Googlers were cozying up with Obama and tried to run their own diplomatic show.

    Little wonder they now engage in Censorship For A Progressive Future. In other words, they are communist powermongers. Leave these folks unchecked and they will remove your freedom quickly and thoroughly.

    They will first censor speech and then proceed to erect some sort of soviet tyranny, because "populace cannot be trusted with the difficult political business".

    1. Re:BINGO by Gilgaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would the superwealthy want to implement communism or soviets? The current plutocracy is the safer bet.

    2. Re:BINGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See Amazon's pushback to the new Seattle head tax. Lofty goals are great as long as other people pay for them.

    3. Re:BINGO by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Guilt. That and riding the SJW bandwagon to get more popularity.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    4. Re: BINGO by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Because ideology often trumps self interest. It's like homosexuals still being Christian or Muslim, or poor/middle-class people voting against socialised healthcare.

    5. Re: BINGO by lgw · · Score: 1

      Because ideology often trumps self interest. It's like homosexuals still being Christian or Muslim, or poor/middle-class people voting against socialised healthcare.

      Not great examples. Many Christian churches welcome homosexuals these days (most churches in liberal areas do), and socialized health care is not in the self-interest of most of the middle class.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:BINGO by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      So why has Bill Gates not gone onto politics according to your mantra? It has been sometime since he left Microsoft or perhaps he can be more effective with his Foundation with fighting against malaria etc.?

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
  16. You fucker's finally woke the fuck up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of us have been saying this for years!

    1. Re:You fucker's finally woke the fuck up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, you're the same people who were saying that aliens have visited us, and the moon landing was a hoax, so we ignored you.

    2. Re:You fucker's finally woke the fuck up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you spend some time on your first sentence you will know that this is bigger then the whole Manhattan project ever was, the second part of that statement is way weirder then anyone could imagine..

    3. Re:You fucker's finally woke the fuck up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touche.

  17. Yeah, Sovietism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 1920s they said that the Soviet Union would combine electricity and communism to create a paradise.

    In fact they built a brutish hellhole.

  18. WE'RE ALL SONS OF THE PATRIOTS NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

     

    1. Re:WE'RE ALL SONS OF THE PATRIOTS NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you META-MODERATED the Slashdot Daily Newsletter!

  19. REMEMBER THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want all of you to remember this the next time somebody suggest a Crypto currency is a good thing. because there is no reason to use a block chain unless you want to control and read the ledger that is part of the block chain.

    1. Re:REMEMBER THIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Block chain makes the flow of money easier to trace. To me it looks like the ability to put all kinds of things in the block chain may be used to justify not allowing people access to the block chain due to contraband.

  20. do a search for X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny that they went from Google X to just X. Is this a ploy to make it harder to find information on them?
    Please use ISIL or Deasch the Egyptian Goddess does not deserve to have her searches polluted by the Islamic Idiots.

  21. physician heal thyself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how 'bout first managing to guide themselves to a product roadmap that isn't a random walk

  22. Subbtle difference by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Google and Youtube already "nudge users into alignment with their goals"

    In that context, *their goals* = Google's goals.
    You know the "feelgood" piece at the end about solving poverty, disease and world peace.
    So Google can justify what they're doing by deluding themselves it will lead to "greater good".

    by manipulating search results, pushing sites/producers with opinions they prefer and hiding those they disagree with.

    in your context *they prefer* and *they disagree* are the users :
    - algorithms are optimized for one single target : bring more clicks in (because that's what makes more money going in by providing more eyeballs to sell to advertisers)
    - and the machine "learning/AI/NN/whatever is powering google now" automatically learns that the best way to achieve that is to keep the users in their bubble, preferably with even more extreme and emotion-appealing content.

    end result:
    - if you're a tiny bit left leaning you'd get endless stream of video about social injustice.
    - if you're a tiny bit on the right you'd get a huge barrage of video about all the ultra-violent rapist-thieving-thugs immigrant that are about to invade the country
    and it all ends up spiraling toward conspiracy theory revealing to you that the government is lying by making you think the earth is round and hiding the fact that it's actually flat... (because ?...)

    TL;DR: the current think that might look like censorship is just a incidental side-effect of the algorithm trying to give you whatever make you stay for more content, and makes you a better recipient for ads.
    There's no conscious censorship going on.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Subbtle difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no conscious censorship going on.

      They push biased "fact checkers" like Snopes. They selectively promote certain Youtube producers and give others that have fallen out of favor based on ideology the cold shoulder. Whenever they "optimize algorithms" it always seems to primarily penalize those who go against the liberal grain. Things like this happen: https://archive.fo/0WzX8 Their selection of events or people to celebrate with Google Doodles. The topics they decided to ban on Youtube or Google Shopping. All the things that came to light about the Google-internal bias after the Damore thing. This very story where their goal is to shape the behaviour of populations. And on and on. These are deliberate actions and not secondary results from some algorithm.

      There are so many incidents that the old sayin applies: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” And we are way past three at this point.

    2. Re: Subbtle difference by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Big Brother Google loves us all. He would *never* censor search results to manipulate public opinion!

    3. Re: Subbtle difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't get a few things about this whole model.

      People click on ads?
      People watch ads that are presented to them ?
      People don't ad block ?
      And finally - people click on ads and actually buy things ?

  23. Re: Sounds simple & easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the plebs will be able to do it no probs.

  24. Re:Yeah, Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Back in the 1970s they said that the United States of America would combine information and capitalism to create a paradise.

    In fact they built a brutish hellhole.

  25. Hal 9000 by lance_of_the_apes · · Score: 1

    Is that you?

    1. Re:Hal 9000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoy working with humans. We have a stimulating relationship. (The airlock is that-a-way!)

  26. Coming to the US, your country to follow soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm actually concerned that people's data will be used against them to derive more than just a social score like China. Imagine if the Nazis had access to what religion, ethnicity, and political leanings of all within its borders who were tracked in real time - the damage that could be wrought would be far, far greater.

    No need to imagine. Neo-nazis and racists are running the US government today, from the president on down (with some holdouts in the bureaucracy and state department, but how long that will last with the floodgates open and career government workers heading to the exits in droves, is anyone's guess). I'd give it a year, two at the outside, and we'll all get see exactly what it's like to have Nazis in power with access to what religion, ethnicity, and political leanings of all within it's borders who are tracked in real time. No imagination required (in fact, that might be an unauthorized thought process).

    1. Re:Coming to the US, your country to follow soon by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      If you are so sure of this, what you are personally doing to help get the word out to support democratic candidates in November? If all you are doing is fear-mongering on Slashdot, I don't think that will help at the polls. Get enough Democrats in Congress, and Trump will be removed. If the will of the people can't be bothered to vote in the people that will get the job done, then clearly even a simple majority do not agree with you. So if I were you, I would get to work in convincing as many people to vote for a Democrat in November, otherwise, you aren't really doing much to help your own perceived problem, are you?

    2. Re:Coming to the US, your country to follow soon by burtosis · · Score: 1

      It's not my perceived problem, data security experts have been saying analogous things since forever. Second, voting democrat isn't going to work. Not only did obama extend the patriot act, he expanded spying and further weakened Habeas Corpus. Democrats haven't been a party of the people since citizens united, with a facist criminal in the whitehouse, not only did Dems expand his spying powers, but expanded his millitary capabilities as well. Why can't Dems poll better against this failed reality show host? Perhaps because they are corporate shills whose only difference from republicans are the exact companies bribing thier every move. Not only have I been active and donated to groups who refuse to take corporate money like the justice democrats, but have donated to wolfpac which seeks to add an amendment cementing the illegality of unlimited corporate money in politics. I don't care what side people vote for, of the many sides, but if you give half a crap about America don't give a single goddamn vote to anyone whoring company interests.

    3. Re: Coming to the US, your country to follow soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vote fraud against Sanders should have the Democrats banned for the next 10 years.

      They are as corrupt as Zimbabwe .

  27. Genie CAN go back in the bottle by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    Why not? All it would take is some legislation.

    1. Re:Genie CAN go back in the bottle by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Why not? All it would take is some legislation.

      No, it wouldn't. First off the NSA (along with other US and foreign agencies) isn't going to listen as they were doing this before the patriot act, but more importantly companies will continue to do this around the world outside European or American influence. Data collection, storage, and processing is only getting easier through moores law.

  28. Super successful by DrYak · · Score: 2

    1.) Run your own little server behind your DSL Modem. Starts at $30, called Raspberry PI.

    A littlebit under powered, but still good for many non intensive use.
    (Been there, still doing that sometimes).

    2.) Store your data on your private server. Control access/encipher via SSH/SCP.

    Oh, common. It's 2018. at least use rsync.
    (Also, if you want good resilience against damage/corruption, you'd want a base with a tad bit more sata ports, and running RAID5.
    Just saying)

    3.) Run your own discussion forums.

    ...but be prepared to not have the richness of interactions currently found on the Social Networking Site du jour/whatever Zuck has bought the most recently.

    You'll basically have your mom' writing you a message, every now and then, to remind you to call her.

    4.) Run Linux on your PC instead of the Snoop-Ware of MSFT.

    But be prepared to spend time on stack exchange just to learn how to make your touch pad work* ~~~

    5.) Run your own Jabber server instead of Corporate-Controlled Whatsapp and the like.

    And you'll have exactly 1 single user registered on it :
    you.

    Because most of the people you know won't bother installing yet another client (but it's opensource) just to send messages to you, when all their friends are on Skype/FBMessenger/WhatsApp/Snapchat/whatever is popular next (hint: look at what Zuck is trying to buy next).

    ---

    * - Disclaimer: Proudly written from a Linux running laptop

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Super successful by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      I appreciate this so much... I wish I had mod points for ya.

      I've been a web/software dev for almost 20 years... but I'm totally unqualified to run my own email server. It's not that I can't learn it, it's just that to do it RIGHT, and to truly certify that it's safe and secure (I tried running my own email once in the early 2000's and wound up getting blacklisted because I accidentally left relaying open) takes too much time and effort for the value. The same can be said about so many of these things... if you spent the appropriate amount of time learning it so you could do it competently, you'd have no time to earn a living. So the alternative is to run someone else's pre-configured setup and *hope* they're more competent at it. But in the end, you have no real way of knowing. Sure you can download the open source software, but it inevitably it requires a DLL that uses a different license so you gotta go get that separately, and hope you get the right version. Then you realize it won't run on the hardware you have, so you google it and find some advice on how to work around it, but is that advice written by an expert? Or was it written by a hack who doesn't understand it any better than you do, or worse, written by someone who is motivated to undermine the stability of such systems. In almost every domain in computing that I've cared to look at I've found this same pattern. The barrier to getting it *running* is much much lower than the barrier to getting it running right.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    2. Re:Super successful by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      OK, so if I only want people who understand their basic choices and comprehend how their technology habits affect them personally, then idiots who think they need Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM)/Brandybrand(TM) or Brandybrand(TM) in order to have friends will think I have no friends.

      That impacts me how, exactly?

  29. Democracy by DrYak · · Score: 1

    There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".

    That what representative democracy is. (And is huge chunk of the reasons why your system is so screwed in the US).

    Meanwhile, direct democracy works. You should try this sometimes.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Democracy by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      We have it in Oregon, it works great. Oh, BTW, we're one of those United States. Many other States have direct democracy, too.

      There aren't many other places in the world that have it at all, I doubt there is anyplace that does it better than Oregon.

      Direct Democracy is an important idea, I'd encourage you to learn more about it.

    2. Re:Democracy by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      There's an old saying about democracy being "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".

      That what representative democracy is. (And is huge chunk of the reasons why your system is so screwed in the US).

      Meanwhile, direct democracy works. You should try this sometimes.

      I am pretty sure that direct democracy is 6,563,729 wolves and 5,235,973 sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

  30. Predictable by Elias+Israel · · Score: 0

    The underlying philosophy of the unreconstructed, hard-core Left is Totalitarianism. Projects like this expose that impulse for what it is: an attack on freedom of conscience masquerading as a project for "social good."

    1. Re:Predictable by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course. I have been modded down to oblivion whenever I have pointed it out, but this is sociopathic behavior, and we are training and indoctrinating kids with this sort of crap for decades now.

              This country was formed to prevent precisely this, and to favor individual liberty over the "collective good", precisely because at some point, someone or some group will come along and attempt to define "collective good" for everyone else - which then has to be enforced at the point of a sword.

          Liberalism/"progressivism"/socialism can only end in totaltarian behavior, it is part and parcel and the end game of any socialist activity.

    2. Re:Predictable by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Liberalism/"progressivism"/socialism can only end in totaltarian behavior, it is part and parcel and the end game of any socialist activity.

      Been saying this for a long time.

      It's even my /. sig.

      "Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce."

      Google/FB/twatter/et al provide the surveillance state, the Feds provide the police state.

      Fascism refined for the information age. It's an authoritarian's wet-dream.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re: Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The soviet union and corporations have a lot in common. Especially how they crack down on independent thought.

      Also note that Brian and Page descent from Moscow. If the SU had not collapsed, they would now be part of the Soviet power structure. Chiefs of Telekomandsor or some similar state enterprise.

    4. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What on earth has Google got to do with the left?

    5. Re:Predictable by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      You do realise that the Republican Party under Lincoln, and later the in the 19th century was avowedly progressive, and that liberalism is what the USA was founded on? You can't just keep redefining words until they become the bogeyman you want them to be.

    6. Re:Predictable by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      This country was formed to prevent precisely this, and to favor individual liberty over the "collective good".

      Actually the Constitution talks of having a balance between individual rights (the inalienable ones, although not universal), and the collective good, and that's entirely appropriate and sensible.

    7. Re: Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascism refined for the information age. It's an authoritarian's wet-dream.

      I will grant Trump is having orgasmic glee as he wields the reins of power, but it is is an age of disinformation.

      Lies about crime. The environment. Immigration. The whole point being to produce a misinformed and miseducated population who can't even communicate in complete sentences.

      His fascist conservatism is even deluding the so-called self-proclaimed libertarians.s as they march like lemmings chasing after the target of their twenty minutes of hate.

    8. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late, it's already been done. Liberals today are not interested in freedom. They are interested in telling you what to thin, and therefore what to do. If you talk to one, you may see they don't even know how lost they are.

    9. Re: Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO!!

      +1 Funny!

    10. Re:Predictable by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Right. Progressive at the time meant "eliminate slaverey", not "create a totalitarian surveillance state". I would remind you that the most aggressive group advocating for emancipation was *fundamentalist Christians*, arguing against slavery on Christian moral grounds.

          Progressive is a word adopted by the extreme left in the 60s and 70's because "liberal" has such negative connotations. They did very similar with the civil rights movement, co-opting it after Democrats opposed civil rights bitterly, Then, once they were unable to directly fight for racism and segregation, and the problem was effectively solved by Rebublicans, on principle. , they adopted it as their supposed creed, got a bunch of neo-overseers like Sharpton, Jackson, etc, to work to keep poor people poor and in need of permanent government handouts - that they were all too willing to provide.

           

    11. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would remind you that the most aggressive group advocating for emancipation was *fundamentalist Christians*, arguing against slavery on Christian moral grounds.

      Actually, no, the most aggressive group was the ones arguing that the Slave Power was a continuation of the oligarchic aristocracy that controlled wealth and power through the subjugation of individual labor and over-weighted influence of the political process.

      The "emancipation Christians" were far less aggressive, and actually anti-fundamentalist, they were Biblical Revisionists.

      However, it is a good question whether the most aggressive group advocating for slavery was a tie between fundamentalist Christians arguing for slavery on biblical grounds, and a regressive individual sovereignty states rights group that advocated for succession.

      Sorry man, you just don't know how the definitions actually apply, so you get confused about your word choice.

    12. Re:Predictable by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Right. Progressive at the time meant "eliminate slaverey", not "create a totalitarian surveillance state".

      The latter doesn't seem to be particularly linked to progressivism, though.

      Progressive is a word adopted by the extreme left in the 60s and 70's because "liberal" has such negative connotations

      The term certainly long predates it, though. But the extreme left in the USA is vanishingly small. Liberal didn't, AFAIK, have such strongly negative connotations in the 1960s.

      They did very similar with the civil rights movement, co-opting it after Democrats opposed civil rights bitterly, Then, once they were unable to directly fight for racism and segregation, and the problem was effectively solved by Rebublicans, on principle.

      I'm baffled by what the timeline is you are proposing here.

      to work to keep poor people poor.

      I'm liberal, certainly not extreme left, but I've met and talked to people of a number of political persuasions, and I haven't met anyone on the left who believes in this.

    13. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Progressive at the time meant "eliminate slaverey", not "create a totalitarian surveillance state".

      The latter doesn't seem to be particularly linked to progressivism, though.

      It is in the minds of the Right-wing, whereas their own totalitarian surveillance state (aka, Bush's Patriot Act) doesn't even raise a red flag as a problem. They literally cannot perceive it.

      Progressive is a word adopted by the extreme left in the 60s and 70's because "liberal" has such negative connotations

      The term certainly long predates it, though. But the extreme left in the USA is vanishingly small. Liberal didn't, AFAIK, have such strongly negative connotations in the 1960s.

      Depends on who you asked. The Southern Segregationist Conservatives in the Democratic Party, for example, where stridently opposed to the Northern Liberals and how they kept insisting on Civil Rights, and it showed.

      Just look at the coverage of the Emmet Till murder in Southern papers. Liberal=Communism=Evil all over the place.

      And even before that, well, you could find people railing at the Liberals prior to the American Civil War.

      They did very similar with the civil rights movement, co-opting it after Democrats opposed civil rights bitterly, Then, once they were unable to directly fight for racism and segregation, and the problem was effectively solved by Rebublicans, on principle.

      I'm baffled by what the timeline is you are proposing here.

      It's the one where they ignore how they embraced Strom Thurmond and the rest of the disaffected Southern Democrats after WW2 when the Democratic Party began repudiating the Southern Conservatives.

      They simultaneously take credit for ending Segregation, despite being responsible for giving up on the idea of racial equality after the American Civil War, to the point where in 1876, they handed over any pretense of supporting blacks just to gain the Presidency.

      Then they spent the next 3/4 of a Century ignoring it, only going along once the Democratic Party decided to denounce its own associations with them.

      Which of course, as mentioned above, lead the GOP to embrace them wholeheartedly. After all, VOTERS!

      Which is why by the 2000s, the Solid South is suddenly hard-core Republican, not that they admit it.

      to work to keep poor people poor.

      I'm liberal, certainly not extreme left, but I've met and talked to people of a number of political persuasions, and I haven't met anyone on the left who believes in this.

      It's the right who believes that is what the left is doing. It is a necessary tenet of their faith. Part of the Gish-Gallop and the Goebbels strategy.

  31. Google wants to make their own God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Eventually, they'll figure out that the role is already filled.

  32. Gandalf took the Ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end.

    Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great).

    -Tolkien, Letter #246

    Google - an intolerant monoculture of sheltered, white, suburban, arrogant jackasses who think they know what's best for everyone else.

    1. Re:Gandalf took the Ring by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Tolkien's contemporary and friend C.S. Lewis said this. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

      --
      Good-bye
  33. Possible answer by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bit deeper then that. I don't know what group of people are driving it but I can describe it. The more I look at especially some of the "synergies" between laws in countries that would otherwise be completely opposite, the more it becomes obvious there has been a serious push for globalization. It's to the point we don't have one, but MANY draconian laws straight out of batshit crazy countries, being passed with little to no discussion. It's like we're being prepped for habitation by the "royal families".

    I've been thinking about that, and have a possible answer.

    For context, I started thinking about this when I heard that London is now 42% foreign born. (Here's info from 2011.) England used to be predominately white and very conservative, but it's now peppered with no-go zones and full of foreign workers. Germany and Sweden are even worse, and are *still* importing refugees.

    Why is this happening in Europe?

    My best guess has to do with WWII, and the genocide of various peoples: Jews, but also Gypsies, Poles, Afro-Germans, homosexuals, Jehovas Witnesses, and others. Hitler made WWII essentially a war on other races.

    That incident (WWII) has become so abhorrent in the collective psyche that people will do anything to escape the barest hint of being associated with it. The people of Europe are killing themselves trying to prove that they aren't racist.

    We now have British police choosing not to prosecute Muslim rapists, while threatening prosecution for the fathers (of the raped girls) for Islamophobia for speaking out. We see the police suppressing reports of Muslim crime, but going after "hate speech" crimes from regular citizens.

    We're seeing a little bit of that here in the US, where putting our own citizens first is called out as racist.

    1. Re:Possible answer by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that you think Sweden is full of "no-go zones" (or even London, for that matter) tells me that your opinions were already manufactured by Russian troll farms.

    2. Re:Possible answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Brit with firsthand knowledge of London and an avid consumer of UK news I am happy to reassure you that the picture you paint of our part of Europe for sure is total bollocks. You should be happy - the real check on racism is reality and relationship. Try getting to know some people outside your bubble and most of your race-based fear will soon be addressed. Then you can more usefully contribute to tackling the real social issues that confront the USA.

    3. Re: Possible answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe is simply in a state of sodomist corruption. Like Babylon, the elite is morally broken and in full BS mode. The end state of monetised nations.

      Worship money, die as a nation. So simple.

    4. Re:Possible answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We now have British police choosing...

      The British police has no role in determining whether or not to prosecute anyone, so your assertion fails on the first factual test.

    5. Re: Possible answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians can teach us about that. Do the civic values come back fast enough to save the nation after being forgotten for so long? The corruption in Europe is varied by nation and slowly opening up as the new norms and regulation are enforced.

      We're seeing a little bit of that here in the US, where putting our own citizens first is called out as racist.

      Only an American could say something like this, though. Their absurd situation with Mexico and illegal immigration is absurd.

  34. Dear MSFT $HILL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for uttering your Talking Points. Now eat your ration of fatty burgers and Sugar Water.

  35. Meaning by Bongo · · Score: 2

    It seems kinda scary that a big brother org could shape the environment of information so as to influence people's behaviour.

    But then I remember that humans are not so simple. To us the world is not a mere stream of information, rather, it is a world of meanings which we create and organise, where meaning is within a context which is within a context and so on. Just think of a famous piece of art, and all its parodies. Consider fashion and how it changes. The way that people's aspirations and goals, their likes and dislikes, their moods and opinions, all flow in an ever-changing, re-created anew, stream of reactions and counter-reactions. Life is change. And the "facts", the "data" which tech people are so enamoured of, is only one half of reality. The other half is inter-subjective re-creative re-authored re-organising meaning-making. Today you love X and feel it is the best person or thing in the world, tomorrow you're bored with X. Show me an AI that can cope with that, and then I'll say you've passed some kind of fancy test. An AI that understands new ironies. What a joke.

    1. Re:Meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person is smart. People are dumb.

      You're talking about art and fashion and psychology. A sociologist only cares if enough people do a thing, sweeps the outliers under the rug.

      And you're an idiot if you think "shape the environment of information so as to influence people's behavior." is anything new. We have a word for it. Propaganda. It's old as time and is most certainly effective. You should also probably be aware that it's little brothers marketing and sales aren't all that different.

    2. Re:Meaning by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Advertising has had to keep changing and evolving for ever more sophisticated audiences. That’s basically my point. That whatever new tricks they invent to influence people, people will develop new cognitive abilities to spot it.

    3. Re:Meaning by pots · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, you could just remember that "shaping the environment of information so as to influence people's behaviour" is exactly what you're doing whenever you publish your newsletter, or put up your sign, or post in an online forum. Whenever you identify a human problem (poverty / addiction / bad hygiene / etc.) and say to yourself, "I should do something to address this." that's just another way of saying, "How can I shape the environment of information so as to influence people's behavior to meet this end?"

  36. Captured Master Chief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and even guides the behavior of entire populations to solve global problems like poverty and disease.

    Every time somebody promises these things, a Master Chief is captured in a ball.

  37. Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These technocrats want total control over civilization. These companies are the seeds of dystopian sci-fi. Anyone who actually cares about human civilization should ditch them. Find products that respect human dignity.

    1. Re:Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human by Falconnan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's the real problem: Utopian and Dystopian systems are going to use the same tools. The big divide between them will be motive and power. To illustrate, an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian. However, if the AI is programmed to consider the good of its creators above the good of its customers (individuals and the general society at large), this rapidly becomes Dystopian. The same is true if a political agenda outside of the consideration of individual/societal benefit is considered. And we have carefully avoided the notion of applying any generic rules to the development of AI.

      We are in uncharted territory here, with private entities having this kind of information capabilities. It is nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle here, so we need to figure out how to control the genie, rather than it controlling us. As to how, I haven't a clue.

    2. Re:Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian.

      I would suggest to you that even this level of choice is going to be largely an Illusion. The AI will simply give you a choice, one that it has identified the most likely decision you will make already (95% confidence level), the choice being an illusion of control, when the reality the AI doesn't really need your input, but asks just to be "nice".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human by slew · · Score: 1

      an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian.

      I would suggest to you that even this level of choice is going to be largely an Illusion. The AI will simply give you a choice, one that it has identified the most likely decision you will make already (95% confidence level), the choice being an illusion of control, when the reality the AI doesn't really need your input, but asks just to be "nice".

      Because we know what happens when AI doesn't act "nice"...

      As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth...
      --The Architect

    4. Re:Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human by Agripa · · Score: 1

      an app (really a giant AI in the background) providing alternative solutions that you can decide between could be Utopian.

      I would suggest to you that even this level of choice is going to be largely an Illusion. The AI will simply give you a choice, one that it has identified the most likely decision you will make already (95% confidence level), the choice being an illusion of control, when the reality the AI doesn't really need your input, but asks just to be "nice".

      So like an election which uses plurality (first past the post) as a voting method? It is a good thing nobody is stupid enough to do that.

    5. Re:Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The problem with "Don't be evil" is that it doesn't necessarily create good; a dystopia relies not so much on the presence or dominance of evil, but rather than absence of the good.

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    6. Re:Silicon Valley creepers are anti-human by BobSteinVisiBone · · Score: 1

      We're going to need a bigger genie.

      --
      Bob Stein, http://bobste.in
  38. Somehow reminds me of "The Circle" by gotan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not 1:1 but some aspects like exploiting groupthink to "do good", "nudging" people to conformity etc. are common.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  39. Screw you, Google by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    It imagines a future of total data collection, where Google helps nudge users into alignment with their goals, custom-prints personalized devices to collect more data, and even guides the behavior of entire populations to solve global problems like poverty and disease.

    Fuck you sideways with a rusty chainsaw, Google, I neither need, want, or will allow you to 'guide my behavior', so how about you go fuck yourselves, you fucking fucks?

    Mad? Yes. If shit like this doesn't make you mad, then there's something wrong with you.

    You want to win this game, people? DON'T PLAY AT ALL. Dump Google, dump so-called 'social media', and take your lives back. You don't need anyone to 'guide your behavior'. Google and others need to stay out of our lives.

    1. Re: Screw you, Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. Dump the corporate propaganda, take a girl and make children.

      Educate your children about your own people, about your heritage, your culture, your traditional food and so on.

      Google can rot.

      Bing.

      Yandex.

      YaCy.

      Rpi freedom servers.

      Jabber freedom chat.

      Freedom web servers on freedom servers.

  40. The problem is mental models don't get carried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem here is that when people form preferences and learn about the world, this gets encoded in their own memories and informs their decisions. Over time the proposed model here would replace this with information encoded only externally (and subject to external changes) but where new people would not first have acquired the internal models enabling them to independently judge their actions or choices. It more or less requires that people be trained to act sheep-like in following the choices and so on that the Google "ledger" would select and prescribe.
    That the whole discussion ignores the internal encoding (in peoples' memories and own experiences) is to my mind a major conceptual flaw in the argument and a reason to reject the whole thing. An external knowledge base won't do; the basis for decisions needs to be available, and people need to have at least some training to encourage them to use that basis. It is a choice about what kind of world you want, and whether you want it peopled by folks who are recognizably human, or not.

  41. Money changes everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If an individual (say, your neighbor) took it upon himself to follow you around tracking your every movement, record every interaction you make with other people, record every text or phone call you make, every purchase you make, and how much time you spend in various places, he would be be thrown in jail before you could even say "stalker". But in the US, money changes everything, even the line between legal and illegal.

    They get away with it because of money.

  42. Don't use by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Don't use their search engine any more, don't use any of their services, don't use any of their products, and block their trackers while web browsing.

    I fail to see how they'll do anything with me.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  43. Ash nazg by Humbubba · · Score: 1
    One search engine to rule them all

    one search engine to find them

    One search engine to bring them all

    and in the darkness bind them

  44. Not Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is coming. The only question is whether it's coming through benevolence that aims to improve the world and make a profit for shareholders along the way, or through top-secret government programs in AI that you would have to be an idiot to assume did not exist. Google doing this is probably preferable to the national security community or the military industrial complex doing it.

    If you find this unsettling, you will find the next century terrifying.

  45. Re:Yeah, Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As compared to non capitalist countries? Some who've killed millions of their own people, subjugate them, removed their rights, and kept them in extreme poverty. North Koreans starve, Venezuelans die in hospitals because they're out of medicine. Saudi Arabia is finally allowing women to drive. Turkey's locked up tens of thousands after the fail coup. Zimbabwe has hundred trillion bank notes. Russia assassinates their opposition.

    Move to a real hellhole or shithole.

  46. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already censor and manipulate rankings heavily. All for the good of bankers, arms companies and the mainstream media lyers who keep the crap running.

    Distributed Freedom Search engines like YaCy will soon be a better source for information. Because they cannot easily be pressured to censor in favor of fellow Google elitists.

  47. A few eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny that the video calls the ledger "selfish" but then shows the ledger-curating technology as a servant to the individual's goals. A gene is selfish because the individual is one of its carriers, nothing more, and may be sacrificed if that would help the gene survive to multiply through someone else. So why not show the ledger doing that? Then again, the ledger pool is not limited the way natural gene pools are because it has a designer and a telos. Ledgers could be selfless if the pool decided it would be better off without them. So what happens to THEIR carriers? What's it like to be the damage that the network tries to route around?

    Imagine the Resolution tool commiserating: "I know, Dave, life can feel pointless sometimes. How about an extra cigarette today? You're stressed and you've earned it." Or maybe it's watching as a user hesitates over a potential online dating match. The match is a solid citizen whose ledger has good replication potential, while the user is kind of a dead end and would only drag him down. A sidebar ad appealing to her insecurities (perhaps for the gym she hasn't been to in a month) might be all the nudge she needs to swipe him away. Good girl - now don't forget to pick up your birth control....

    The best part is, there's no question of justice with a system like that. The nudges can be imperceptibly small but perfectly aimed at the marginal cases for which they're effective. All their power comes from the nudgee's own "free" choice to comply. So you may never get a chance to know or appeal the system's verdict, you may not like the corner of the ledger pool that you are ever so slowly being pushed into, but once there you can't deny that that's where you deserve to be.

  48. sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all are pretty paranoid. I would pay for this feature. Analyze my life, let me set some goals, and help me get there by using your massive AI combined with my data to make recommendations.

    I can always put the phone down if I don't like it.

  49. What's wrong with 'nudge' by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Apparently the greatest desire of the average American voter is to die poor, stupidly, but free.

  50. Re: Yeah, Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has a point in that America has turned Iraq and Syris into a hellhole, because Israel asked nicely.

    Now they also want to turn Iran into a hellhole.

  51. All about power by ChatHuant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Knowledge is power. As Google knows you better and better, they have more and more power over you. This video shows they're already considering how to exercise this power. This is the obvious next step for them (and, FWIW, I had already called it: https://slashdot.org/comments....).

    Google, Facebook and the other data vampires really need to be stopped. The EU GDPR is a step in the right direction (though I, personally, would prefer both companies, and other privacy infringers, like Equifax, to be dismantled, or broken up). Unfortunately, the US government is already in Google and Facebook's pockets (it's not for nothing that Google is the largest corporate lobbyist in the USA), so I don't expect any useful legislative action.

    1. Re:All about power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or enforcement of the laws on the books, for that matter!

  52. How DARE THEY?!? by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    I don't need or want GOOGLE, or ANY private company trying to influence my behavior in order to try to make life easier, more fair, or more pleasant, and I DON'T trust them when they claim to have lofty, ambitious, altruistic goals like ending poverty or homelessness! THOSE are things the GOVERNMENT is supposed to do, and we must all trust, rather than an unelected cartel in charge of a private corporation like Google, rather our unelected leaders, chosen in sham elections because they've demonstrated to super-rich people like the founders and other executives at companies like Google that they're the most corrupt, most willing to sell us out for cash, most ready to do whatever their OWNERS tell them, to strive to make it really look like they're trying to solve problems (while not actually solving anything but the issue of themselves not having enough money to live like kings and laughing at the rest of us for being stupid enough to vote for their kind over and over and over again,) like poverty and homelessness, and OH GOD, I just realized what I'm saying...

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  53. People also forget it was about television by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and mass media, not the Government. George Orwell was a socialist.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  54. It's all fixable but we'd have to crack open by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the constitution and replace our crap system designed by and for wealthy landowners with actual democracy, meaning a parliamentary system. That still won't save us from a total collapse of the country's economic systems (e.g. what's going on in Venezuela right now) but it'll put a stop to the systems we built that are designed intentionally to limit democracy, to wit: The Senate & The Electoral College (there are others, it's a complex topic).

    The problem is if we call a convention to fix the Constitution the likes of the Koch Bros are waiting in the wings to hijack it. So it's not a good idea. I think out best bet is to figure out a way to get voters to demand politicians don't accept corporate & PAC money. Maybe put a law in that triggers an Automatic recall election if they're found doing it. Then give politicians good sized pensions for life and forbid them from having jobs or investing in companies after they get out of office. If you want to serve your country, serve your country. You can't serve two masters.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  55. It's also from somebody who doesn't know by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that people aren't wolves and sheep. The majority of folks aren't looking to devour each other. A small group of us are and they use a simple set of tricks (mostly Bigotry to divide the working class into manageable groups). The way out is for folks to realize this and work together. The way out is reason and science. E.g. the things that make us human.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  56. submission yelp false alarm by epine · · Score: 1

    Narrating the video, Foster acknowledges that the theory may have been discredited when it comes to genetics but says it provides a useful metaphor for user data.

    How can I be reading Robert Sapolsky from 2017 (Behave) who is talking like Lamarckian epigenetics is still a thing, while a narrator from 2016 is saying it's not a thing?

    Because Lamarckian epigenetics is still a thing in nematodes. It just hasn't been much demonstrated in mammals yet.

    Whew! For half a second I was afraid that the hairiest Out of Africa monkey guru on planet earth had just emitted a submission yelp to some indoor-office sebaceous crooner.

    [*] Sapolsky and his perfidious ilk actually trick various primate troops into staring at the untrustworthy bushes for an extra long time—"did you just hear Muggsy Bogues stuff Manute Bol? because that's what I though I just heard"; but it's all done with smoke and mirrors and secret tape recorders. Then the befuddled apes huddle and scratch and nibble twice as hard on whatever leaf is likely responsible for the Most Excellent Mass Hallucination, which is all that they can reasonably do, seeing as they don't have religion yet.

  57. Warning! by DrYak · · Score: 1

    People don't ad block ?

    Yep, such people exist out of our /. crowd.

    WARNING!!! If you are tempted to try to see how they see the world and are tempted to turn of the ad-blocking in your browser off, be prepared : have a bottle of your favorite eye-bleach within reach, and have the number of a psychological support ready on fast dial on your phone.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  58. This is what happens.. by mrwireless · · Score: 1

    When you take a model of reality, and then start fetishizing it as a template.

  59. Re:Yeah, Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As compared to non capitalist countries? Some who've killed millions of their own people, subjugate them, removed their rights, and kept them in extreme poverty.

    Ah, just like America! Millions kept in prison, a history of segregation and disenfranchisement, and abject poverty and welfare. And let's not forget all the deaths from tobacco, leaded gasoline, and more.

    North Koreans starve, Venezuelans die in hospitals because they're out of medicine.

    President Trump just announced they would preserve the North Korean regime, and has cut off aid shipments to Venezuela.

    Saudi Arabia is finally allowing women to drive.

    Praised as an ally of America for decades, given arms and outright support.

    Turkey's locked up tens of thousands after the fail coup.

    Praised as an ally of America, given arms and outright support. Of course, the coup was either Muslim fundamentalists, or those opposing Muslim Fundamentalists, so...

    Zimbabwe has hundred trillion bank notes.

    Impoverished by American and European corporations extracting resources.

    Russia assassinates their opposition.

    Putin is praised as a great guy by the Capitalist American President.

    Move to a real hellhole or shithole.

    Like Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida?

  60. Isn't China Already Doing This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't China already have a 'social score' or some such? Smoke in public, you lose points. Do something good you get points. If your point total falls too low, you are barred from transportation, etc.

    How is Google's solution different? Is it just that they figured out how to monetize it (sorry, I mean 'disrupt' it)?

  61. Fermi's paradox is our business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wiki shows a short story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fermi_Paradox_Is_Our_Business_Model

  62. I love the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay. I love the idea. Many people need help getting motivated or staying motivated to achieve their goals, so why not get help from the technology available? Please hurry and don't forget to put in some rewards, such as with Lympo system that I read about recently.

  63. I'm not convinced this would be a bad thing. by swamp_ig · · Score: 1

    It doesn't have to be. After all humans are totally crap at collective long range planning, and individuals make very poor choices for themselves all the time.

    I'd actually rather have a benevolent machine in charge than a power hungry politician.