Context: In my previous discussion post, I analyzed how neither the Chinese nor the US internet regulations seem to be effective, how businesses are mining people's private information, how big data has gotten out of hands, and how, therefore, a comprehensive technological reform is needed. Throughout the following discussion, I further examine the amount of data that businesses are harvesting, and how Facebook and Google, amongst others, act as enablers of these businesses. Sources: Mark Zuckerberg's hearing: Government Public Records (Links to an external site.) Mark Zuckergberg hearing highlights: ABC NEWS (Links to an external site.) Mark Zuckerberg hearing analysis: The Vox, Recode, by Kurt Wagner (Links to an external site.) & The Economist (Links to an external site.) Cambridge Analytica and Facebook Scandal: The Vox, by Alvin Chang (Links to an external site.) Managing Google Data: PC World, by Samuel Axon (Links to an external site.) Managing Facebook Data: Wired, by Nitasha Tiku (Links to an external site.) Prompt: To what extent are digital users informed participants of the internet community? Do they understand the amount of data that businesses are harvesting from them? Is the current level of control granted by big tech companies enough? Response: Over the last couple of months, I've been helping my parents with their business's digital presence, deep-diving into Facebook Ads Manager and Google Analytics. Currently, I'm concerned. I knew that Facebook and Google track user activity and sell that data, but up to a certain extent. What I've seen is mind-blowing. Not only can businesses run ads by age, gender, location, and interests, but also by device, relationship status, life events, and almost anything you can think of. For example, when people naively input their relationship status and anniversaries thinking of it as the key moment when they get to be 'official,' below this level of romantic cloudiness, Facebook leverages that data. The degree of precision is troubling: Right now, I can run an ad that targets men between the ages of 18 and 45, are in a relationship (I can even specify the relationship type, from married to open), and will have their anniversaries in less than a month. That's not all though... I can track conversions for an entire week... Or in other words, Facebook tracks activity for an entire week. For all we know, Facebook tracks activity forever. It's great for advertisers, and it's not like we know who the individuals that compose each segment are, but Facebook does... Now that I think about it, I might have been living in a bubble. I shouldn't be surprised. Facebook already faced major backlash in April of last year, when its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, testified for the Senate of Commerce and the Senate of Judiciary committees. The Congressional hearing, which amounted to nearly ten hours and spanned over two days, left us with many significant takeaways. Number one, that Facebook and safety don't go hand in hand. While it's true that Zuckerberg testified that "Facebook is safe," he also recognized that they "have made a lot of mistakes in running the company," and that the Cambridge Analytica breach (Links to an external site.) was "a big mistake." The breach involved 87 million users, most of which had not agreed to have their data shared, used, and sold (Chang). On the other hand, we are inconsistent when we harshly criticize Facebook for not protecting our data when we ourselves do nothing to protect it. In this respect, perhaps the most valuable exchange of the entire hearing was when Senator Lindsey Graham asked: "Do you think the average consumer understands what they're signing up for?" To which Zuckerberg responded: "I don't think that the average person likely reads that whole document." That's on Facebook for not making it user friendly, but it's also on us for not caring enough. We need to be aware that, generally, we have control over our data. Just enter https://myactivity.google.com/ (Links to an external site.), and you'll be able to manage your data gathered by Google. Facebook's similar tool is called Facebook Access Your Information: If you need guidance you can check these two tutorials out for Google (Links to an external site.) and Facebook (Links to an external site.). In any case, you can always delete your account.
0 Comments
The internet's impact on society is unmeasurable. Search engines, social networks, and the infinite amount of information these contain, have transformed how we receive and process data. Our Facebook friend list, our Google search history, our Amazon purchases, and the reviews we've left on all of these platforms... they all come down to data. Everything comes down to data. Data grows. (Links to an external site.) Customers use data to inform their purchasing decisions, not realizing that in doing so, they leave data behind that businesses use to target them. This self-invigorating cycle has gotten out of hands. Today, there's data for every person... for every purpose. Data that's power. And like any other power structure, it ought to be separated --- the users, the tech businesses, and the governments --- the three branches of data.
Yet there has been no universal regulation. Data is currently chaotic. Without an international technological constitution, we're doomed to fail. The New York Times journalist Raymond Zhong explores this issue through his article "How China Walled Off the Internet." Raymond Zhong explains how there are two opposing systems in which the internet has flourished: the American --- characterized by the freedom granted to firms --- and the Chinese --- characterized by the level of government censorship. While it's true that both systems have led to innovation, both have failed to regulate new technologies effectively. The US system is guilty of basing itself off a utopia... that private firms will self-regulate in the interest of society. The Chinese system is guilty of ignoring a fundamental human right: freedom of speech. It's not all negative, however. Perhaps an integrated approach is needed, where freedom of speech is upheld, yet firms are held accountable for the data they collect and sell. This accountability is what Farhad Manjoo explores in his article "Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug." In the article, The New York Times journalist comments on his interviews with Mark Zuckerberg, centering the discussion on fake news and the degree of responsibility Facebook has as a news broadcasting company. While Zuckerberg shares Manjoo's concern for Facebook as an enabler of fake news, confirmation bias, and illegal activity, his decisions point otherwise. Recently Facebook has expanded into live streaming and digital augmentation of both videos and pictures, making content management not easier but harder. Perhaps this is further proof that firms are unable to hold themselves accountable, (Links to an external site.) and that a comprehensive technological reform is needed. Sources:
Genetic Enhancement: Academic Publication: Genetic Doping: WADA we do about the future of 'cheating' in sport (Links to an external site.) CRISPR: Kurzgesagt -- In a Nutshell: Genetic Engineering Will Change Life Forever (Links to an external site.) Doping: Doping key moments in history Other sources Context: In my previous discussion post, I analyzed the articles titled "The Drugs Won: The Case for Ending the Sports War on Drugs" and "Is Human Enhancement Cheating?". Through this commentary, I analyzed how our value system for judging doping is inconsistent --- we are quick in condemning self-enhancement if it's within the sports industry but are even quicker in embracing various self enhancements ourselves. I pointed out how the war on doping has been futile, wasteful, and harmful for athletes. Finally, I discussed the ineffectiveness of the war on doping and the unintended unfairness it creates --- most athletes artificially self-enhance yet few get busted. In this post, I intend to expand on this issue, focusing on how anti-doping agencies will be even less effective in detecting doping as genetic enhancement becomes standard practice. Prompt: To what extent is genetic editing a doping practice? Should anti-doping agencies prohibit genetic enhancements? Should anti-doping agencies prohibit doping as a whole? Response: Humans have engaged in doping for all of human history. Back when the Inca's thrived, the chasquis (the Empire's messengers) avoided fatigue by chewing on coca leaves (Links to an external site.). This is hardly surprising, considering that about 1500 years earlier, both Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman athletes boosted their performance (Links to an external site.) by eating high testosterone foods and drinking herbal teas. Fast-forward to the 18th century, and doping in competitive sports became a trend. As doping techniques advanced, sport organizations became concerned about preserving fairness and competitiveness: By 1929, the International Association of Athletes Federation (IAAF) proclaimed the first rule against doping; by 1967, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) took on the fight; by 1999, the world's most renowned anti-doping organization, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), was formed. (Links to an external site.) Numerous doping scandals have exposed elite athletes since the war on doping began: Diego Maradona, Lance Armstrong, Justin Gatlin, Maria Sharapova, and Alex Rodriguez have all fallen after major exposes. While these public displays have certainly allowed the anti-doping agencies to successfully acquaint us with the various doping techniques (EPO, stimulants, narcotic analgesics, anabolic steroids, etc), they've failed to enforce prohibition, merely using these high profile cases to promote a false sense of effectiveness. As discussed by Patrick Hruby in his article "The Drugs Won: The Case for Ending the Sports War on Drugs," while most athletes make use of banned substances, only a few get caught. This detection problem is set to worsen given the rise of a new doping method: genetic enhancement. While some might argue that genetic enhancement is not doping, it's a hard argument to make. The National Human Genome Research Institute defines genetic enhancement as "the transfer of genetic material intended to modify [...] human traits [...] to produce a desired enhancement" (NHGR). WADA defines doping "as the taking of banned substances or using prohibited methods to enhance or maintain sporting performance" (FIFA). Notice how doping is not only about "banned substances" but also about "prohibited methods"... prohibited methods which include genetic engineering. Moreover, notice how doping is about "enhancement," and genetic enhancement is all about that... about enhancement. As a result, it's no surprise that WADA banned genetic engineering in 2003 (Brown). While the ban theoretically makes sense --- genetic enhancement is doping, thus it should be banned --- and for a time it was enforceable, the development of a new method of genetic engineering, CRISPR-CAS9, makes genetic-enhancement untraceable. CRISPR-CAS9 is revolutionary (see video above). With a scissors-like approach, this genome-editing technology allows for desired DNA traits to be artificially selected. Through CRISPR, bio-engineers can eliminate obesity, certain diseases, and chromosomal defects. There's more though, as CRISPR allows for genomic enhancement that's not limited to living a healthy, normal, average life. In theory, bio-engineers can also grant perfect vision, superintelligence, strength, speed, flexibility, agility... Prof. James Brown's analyzes the implications of this new technology in his article "Genetic Doping: WADA we do about the future of 'cheating' in sport? (Links to an external site.)". The article discusses if genetic enhancement should be considered doping or medical therapy, and expands on gene enhancement detection, health risks, and its impact on fairness and society. Prof. Brown ultimately concludes by providing a series of recommendations in which he states that "sport may soon need to choose whether to allow genetic enhancement" and that "prohibition [might] not be a feasible option" (Brown). In this sense, he is likely to agree with the questions raised in Hruby's and Allenby's articles. Disapproval for athletes that dope is wide-spread. We collectively shame them, ban them, and strip them off their trophies. We call them cheaters --- and 'rightly so' you might think. But what initially seems like a binary problem --- is doping cheating? 'yes --> ban' vs. 'no --> do nothing' --- is the opposite of a strict dichotomy. Vice contributor Patrick Hruby and Slate author Brad Allenby both discuss the complexities of doping, calling society's inconsistent value system when evaluating self-enhancement procedures.
In his article "The Drugs Won: The Case for Ending the Sports War on Drugs," Patrick Hruby argues, as the title suggests, that the war against doping is doomed to fail. The limited amount of resources the anti-doping agencies have access to, the incredible number of drugs already available, and the infinite number to be discovered, make the war on doping a waste. Hruby interviews industry insiders Don Catlin --- former chief of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab --- and Doug Logan --- once the head of the USA Track and Field (USATF) --- to explain how patrolling doping has been incredibly unsuccessful. Catlin explains that over the 30 years he fought doping, only "a few athletes would be caught [but most] [...] would figure out ways to beat the test" (qtd. in Hruby). Logan agrees. For him, the war on doping should be treated like the Vietnam War: we should "declare victory, give up the fight, and bring the troops home" (qtd. in Hruby). Why? Because everyone does it, and there's no way to catch them all. While in an official WADA test --- where athletes were identified --- about 1% of got busted, the actual percentage of athletes that take doping drugs is exponentially higher: an anonymous study from the same agency found that 29% of athletes dope, Sports Medicine sets the number at 45%, and other agencies venture up to 90% (Hruby). As such, Hubry argues, this war is not only wasteful but also pointless: If everyone dopes, then no one does. In this sense, in his article "Is Human Enhancement Cheating?", Brad Allenby explains how our value system for judging self-enhancement is unquestionably flawed: we arbitrarily condemn self-enhancement. We ourselves are perpetrators: Never used a doping compound? That's unlikely as you've probably done so without realizing it, but okay... Perhaps a sex enhancer, or Adderall, or an energy drink, or a breast surgery, or a joint replacement surgery, or eye-correction, or just a simple plain coffee. This list goes on forever, and there's no fundamental difference between any of its elements. When derived back to their purpose, all of these are self-enhancers. Perhaps the difference is that in sports you compete, and in all the others you don't. That's false, though. Life is a competition. We're constantly competing for a better job, better grades, better mates... So why do we judge athletes differently? This inconsistent framework has only led to scandals that harmed top athletes such as Maria Sharapova, Alex Rodriguez, and Lance Armstrong. Perhaps, after all of this discussion, you might still believe they were rightly punished, and you might be right. But take the cases of Peruvian soccer player Paolo Guerrero --- suspended for more than a year for drinking a coca tea (a culturally accepted drink in Peru) and almost left without World Cup (Links to an external site.) --- or Phil DeRosier --- suspended for taking a substance that's not in WADA's prohibited substance list and is not scientifically proven to improve performance --- and its clear there is a systematic problem. To the very least, it would be better if anti-doping agencies reduced its scope, focused on drugs that are scientifically proven to boost performance, and worked with athletes, not against them. Freedom of Speech and cyberbullying: Where do we draw a line? Should we, at all, draw a line?9/19/2019 Evidence:
On YouTube recent policy change on hate-speech: https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/06/our-ongoing-work-to-tackle-hate.html (Links to an external site.) On American's views of the first amendment: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SOFAreport2019.pdf (Links to an external site.) On Steven Crowder vs. Carlos Meza: https://www.businessinsider.com/steven-crowder-youtube-speech-carlos-maza-explained-youtube-2019-6 (Links to an external site.) On Freedom of Speech (Prof. Volokh talk): Eugene Volokh: Free Speech on Campus (Links to an external site.) On colleges and freedom of speech: https://www.thefire.org/state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-includes-unsettling-data-on-campus-speech/ (Links to an external site.) On cyberbullying as freedom of speech: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/is_cyberbullying_free_speech (Links to an external site.) Prompt: Freedom of Speech and cyberbullying: Where do we draw a line? Should we, at all, draw a line? Response: The first amendment of the United States Consitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (). While there are many exceptions to this amendment --- within private property, a call to action, and defamation, amongst others --- it's undeniable the founding fathers gave great importance to the protection of freedom of speech. They rebelled against the British and all they represented: subordination, repression, censorship... Of course, true social equality was not achieved thanks to the Founding Fathers --- it has not been achieved to this day, if ever --- yet the Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence and US constitution, like the defeat of Nazi Germany, Dr. King's I Have a Dream, and, most recently, Gay marriage rights, can all be described as steps taken towards greater social justice. The State of the First Amendment (Links to an external site.) survey, conducted yearly by the Freedom Forum Institute, polls the public's perception on the First Amendment. Overall, while most Americans support the First Amendment, few know its content, and even fewer understand where it applies. What's more troubling: opposition of the first amendment has risen from 20% in 2015 to 29% in 2019 (Freedom Forum Institute). It might not seem as much, but it's an increase of almost 50%. Even more worrying is the fact that few Americans actually support it entirely; when pollers disseminate the first amendment into the rights it assures, support for those specific rights varies. The socio-political climate is a witness of this change given the increasing cases of alleged hate-speech, the silenced public speakers on college campuses, and the increased level of censorship through digital channels. Recently, for example, Youtube decided to update its hate-speech policy. (Links to an external site.) As a private company, they have all the right to filter content that goes against their community guidelines. However, the lines they draw are arbitrary. UCLA Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, Eugene Volokh, questions the general use of these terms as he explains that "hate-speech, harassment, microaggressions, [...] often are not defined and are just assumed to be bad" (Volokh). While YouTube does provide definitions, they themselves recognize how subjective it can all be through the use of terms such as "border-line content" (Youtube). The most notable case is that of right-wing activist Steven Crowder (Links to an external site.), who almost got censored and ended up having his YouTube channel demonetized after harassing Vox writer Carlos Maza on the basis of his sexual orientation and ethnicity. While I disagree with Steven Crowder's offensive comments, I don't believe he should have incurred a penalty. Why should he be threatened with censorship and get demonetized if he's expressing his point of view? Isn't that's what freedom of speech is about? I have a view, I present it, you disagree, you present it, and so on... However, extrapolating this argument to more general cases of cyberbullying (where children are typically involved) is more complicated. For once, minors are more vulnerable to psychological conditions such as low-self esteem, and lack of confidence, amongst others. In this sense, perhaps we should think about not engaging in cyberbullying for basic human decency and not in terms of censorship and freedom of speech. Just a thought. The internet is one of the greatest things ever created by humans. Forget everything else --- the internet is the only thing that has allowed for unlimited: unlimited social connections, unlimited resources, unlimited information... However, it has also promoted unlimited hate. Trolls bully the most vulnerable and face no consequences. Wost of all, this digital aggressions are encouraged by all of the digital social networks. Evil (Links to an external site.)comments are likely to get more attention, reactions, and likes . Authors Taylor Lorenz and Whitney Phillips both target cyberbullying through their articles "Instagram Has a Massive Harassment Problem" and "A Brief History of Trolls." However, they do so with a different purpose: While Lorenz focuses on raising awareness about cyber-hate, Spears is not as involved in calling out the specific aggressions but instead in finding a solution to the problem. Spears considers that only by calling 'trolling' by what it is --- "online aggression" --- the dialogue can move forward (Spears). According to Spears, by calling digital aggressions 'trolling,' we trivialize them, given that the term has no clear meaning. While using 'trolling' causes society to engage in "unverifiable assumptions about the trolls motives," using 'online aggression' prompts the audience with questions: "what kind? how? where?" (Spears). By being able to answer these questions, Spears argues, we will be more equipped to solve cyber-bullying.
Lorenz answers these questions by providing examples of hate-speech clouding over the digital world. One of the most impactful cases was that of Brandon Farbstein, who suffers from dwarfism and intended to use social networks to raise awareness about his condition. The response from the internet, however, was not what he expected: he received numerous "death threats, expletive-laden comments about his appearance, [and] worse" (Lorenz). And like with Farbstein's case, Lorenz goes over many, calling out Instagram as the platform that promotes the most hate. Number one, because of the ease of creating accounts, and number two, because posted content remains unregulated. More clearly, Lorenz explains: "Instagram is large and public enough to invite harassment, but unregulated enough to let it fester" (Lorenz). Lorenz quotes many users demanding Instagram to take a stance against hate speech. In fact, throughout the article, it's clear Lorenz himself is annoyed by Instagram's inefficiency in dealing with online aggressions. However, on this note, I agree with Spears --- it's essential to first engage in what constitutes a digital crime: what is digital hate speech, and what is freedom of speech. What should be censored, and what should not. Only then will we be able to fight against cyber-bullying effectively. |