"New Zealand is far, far too small to bring the likes of Netflix, Google and Facebook to heel. California for example, is said to be the fifth largest economy in the world. Yet Meta and Google are threatening to cut off news items (and searches) about California if the state proceeds with... legislation [that] would require the social media giants to pay a “journalism useage fee” for linking to news sites based in California."
"Meta also records that 234 such requests [for personal data] were made to it by the New Zealand government during the same period. That sort of thing explains why the real answer is not a selective ban imposed solely on Tiktok, but a comprehensive law to protect data privacy for all, from all, by all."
I've noticed recently that a lot of the things I do using a website put me at risk of being datafarmed, for information that is not required for the thing I'm trying to do, and which the organisation running the site has no right to. Not supplying the extraneous personal data often prevents me from getting the thing done.
"It's not surprising that the public health community has become divided on this. They're so desperate for a genuine solution, and have been fooled so often by low tars, and lights, and ultra lights, and filters. That has led to suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that even when something truly safer comes along, how can we even trust this industry at all?"
This in turn gets me thinking about the lessons for people like us, trying to build a company around replacing addictive and socially harmful #DataFarming platforms.
It makes we wonder again about Meta's motives in announcing a #fediverse-compatible platform. Is this the 'buy a stake in the company' part of the playbook? Could we soon be staring down the barrel of some of the same regulators whose actions against the DataFarmers we've been so exited by?
"How does Facebook’s bigness hurt you and me? ...Facebook takes a toll on your privacy – but perhaps not in the way you expect. It isn’t just the Facebook app that’s gobbling up your information. Facebook is so big, it has convinced millions of other businesses, apps and websites to also snoop on its behalf. Even when you’re not actively using Facebook. Even when you’re not online."
I have to grudgingly admire the cunning of DataFarms like FarceBook, Goggle, and TripAdVisor getting small businesses all around the world to advertise them for free, while getting businesses to pay the DataFarms to advertise themselves.
"The US Department of Justice (DOJ) claims Google acts as a monopoly, illegally paying billions of dollars to Apple, Samsung, LG and others to make Google the default search engine on phones and computers.
The DOJ says this cuts other players, mainly Microsoft Bing and DuckDuckGo, out of the market.
Its anti-trust case was launched against the search engine giant in 2020"
"... Google of course has the power to charge high prices for those ads, and if the advertisers or the producers are paying high prices for those ads, then... inevitably those higher prices will bleed though to higher prices on their products. So you may not be paying anything for Google, but you will pay indirectly by paying higher prices for everything that's being advertised on Google."
#AnanishChaudhuri, Professor of Experimental Economics, Auckland University
Can someone please create a browser extension that pops up a big scary warning when you try to open a link infected by DataFarmers? Like the one we get when we try to open a link using HTTP instead of HTTPS.
That's a good metaphor for DataFarming; any revenue model for online services that involves getting large number of people onto a platform, gathering data about them, and selling it (or the use of it) to third-parties. Any online platform funded by ads is probably a #DataFarm.
I'm in 2 minds about the way dating apps work these days.
On the one hand, being constantly nagged to unlock other ways of accessing other people on the apps makes online dating feel kind of stalky. Like you're paying someone to find out where someone is going to be so you can hit on them 🤔
OTOH having premium features people can pay for means they have a revenue model other than ads. Although that doesn't guarantee they're not datafarming us anyway.
"And then of course the harvesting of our personal data - quite apart from the privacy issues - has been used to orchestrate campaigns specifically to undermine democratic process. Both in the Brexit campaign, and in the US presidential election. I haven't got time to talk about Cambridge Analytica today, but Google them.
...I don't think they're all-powerful, but a 1% nudge in a tight election could make quite a big difference."
#DataFarming platforms are like tumours; they have to keep growing in order to stay alive. They can cope with a temporary drop in usage. But if a significant number of early adopters go sour on them and start searching for a replacement, the writing is on the wall. Full Bebo is just a matter of time.
Like Xitter, Spezzit is a zombie platform. It's already dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet, and trying to eat the brains of anyone who goes near it:
One thing all these property-owning politicians don't understand about renting in 2023 is the nail-biting, hair-tearing, frustration of typing out your entire life story in triplicate. Just to go to to a viewing for a house they'll show to dozens of potential tenants, so most of that digital paperwork is a complete waste of time.
If you actually get the lease, that's another round of exhaustive data entry labour you're performing for the property management company, unpaid of course.
Me:
> Only the information it's reasonable to ask for would be shown
Here's why I specify that. The forms we have to fill out to view a rental property are often used to extract personal information that's totally unrelated to renting a home. If you don't answer all their questions, however unreasonable, it's anyone's guess whether or not you get to view the property. But the implied threat is obvious.
This is one reason I suspect they're #DataFarming on the side.
"When all of the 25 car brands we reviewed earn our *Privacy Not Included warning label for failing to respect and protect their customers’ privacy, something is seriously wrong. Car companies, are you hard up on cash? Your swan dive into the data biz is worrying us. It’s just that… Drivers are already paying you for their cars so why are you taking their privacy too? Ugh."
Dunbar was an anthropologist, not a neuroanatomy researcher, and Dunbar's Number was an ethnographical observation, not a biological one.
"Your social life has a biological limit: 150. That’s the number—Dunbar’s number, proposed by the British psychologist Robin Dunbar three decades ago—of people with whom you can have meaningful relationships."
Including this article, which psychologises the net and blames the problems caused by #DataFarming on digital communication in general. Classic "get off my lawn".
"You cannot complain about Facebook collecting your life’s history, while at the same time complaining that diaspora* cannot find your former classmates. You cannot complain about WhatsApp collecting your address book, while at the same time stating you do not use eMail because exchanging addresses is too cumbersome. You either get a system that knows who you are or a system that does not."
"The signing of the National Ticketing Solution contract with supplier Cubic means New Zealanders will soon be able to use a single payment system across all public transport networks.
People will be able to pay for bus, train and ferry trips using contactless credit or debit cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay."
"Much of the rest of the world, meanwhile, finds itself in a state of digital colonialism, in which mostly U.S.-based transnational tech corporations own and control the core components of the digital ecosystem, while actively preventing interoperability in order to monopolize the market and orient their services to maximize user engagement, ad impressions, and thus power and profits."