Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

Bay12 Presidential Focus Polling 2016

Ted Cruz
- 7 (6.5%)
Rick Santorum
- 16 (14.8%)
Michelle Bachmann
- 13 (12%)
Chris Christie
- 23 (21.3%)
Rand Paul
- 49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107


Pages: 1 ... 383 384 [385] 386 387 ... 667

Author Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party  (Read 837008 times)

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5760 on: January 24, 2014, 09:32:13 pm »

(Stupid phone.)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 09:36:20 pm by wierd »
Logged

Steeled

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1. To cover, plate, edge, or point with steel.
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5761 on: January 24, 2014, 09:38:47 pm »

Why are you assuming Libertarians prefer to be dominated by corporations more than the government. I personally think corporations should be stripped of the "rights" bought by lobbyists, most notably them gaining human rights. I don't believe people should be able to buy their way out of justice, just like I believe cops shouldn't conceal abuses so no one gets fired. I also don't like corporations or governments spying on me or interfering with my life 'for my own good.'
Quote
And about the Government, you seem to genuinely believe that it will act in your interests less then a corporation in the same case. Look at private vs public sector and see where things are. Corporations don't have any pretense about trying to screw you.
I live in New York, the government isn't subtle about it. At least corporations have to sweet talk at least a bit, or at the very least they won't shoot you a few times and then blame you because they also managed to shoot bystanders

I will admit though that the libertarian anarchy apocalypse would be kind of cool.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged

Max White

  • Bay Watcher
  • Still not hollowed!
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5762 on: January 24, 2014, 09:41:54 pm »

Why are you assuming Libertarians prefer to be dominated by corporations more than the government. I personally think corporations should be stripped of the "rights" bought by lobbyists, most notably them gaining human rights. I don't believe people should be able to buy their way out of justice, just like I believe cops shouldn't conceal abuses so no one gets fired. I also don't like corporations or governments spying on me or interfering with my life 'for my own good.'
Ok, so businesses shouldn't be given special lobbyist rights. I can get behind that, but I don't see how it translates at all into "Government is stepping on us! Lower taxes! Free market solves all!"

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5763 on: January 24, 2014, 09:45:20 pm »

Quote from: MaximumZero
What about those of us that don't think that it should fall to government or businesses to mass-collect data. Perhaps we need a law of some sort that grants the right to some level of privacy, unless a warrant is obtained because of suspicion of illegal behavior? The issue I have here is consent.
Well that's reasonable, and what was mentioned. But Glyph and Salmon only have problems with the government.
Voters are the shareholders of a country. >_>

... Dunno what else to say. Just figured I'd throw it in~
Not really. In the superficial sense that they are both people leave organizations are accountable to, but then donors are stockholders to charities, group projects are stockholders. These are very meaningful differences, not to mention intent, law, and organization; and calling them stockholders is a simplification.
(Stupid phone.)
Mine may be worse. It keeps erasing things at the start of the post. Makes it a damned pain to respond.
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Steeled

  • Bay Watcher
  • 1. To cover, plate, edge, or point with steel.
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5764 on: January 24, 2014, 10:07:12 pm »

Why are you assuming Libertarians prefer to be dominated by corporations more than the government. I personally think corporations should be stripped of the "rights" bought by lobbyists, most notably them gaining human rights. I don't believe people should be able to buy their way out of justice, just like I believe cops shouldn't conceal abuses so no one gets fired. I also don't like corporations or governments spying on me or interfering with my life 'for my own good.'
Ok, so businesses shouldn't be given special lobbyist rights. I can get behind that, but I don't see how it translates at all into "Government is stepping on us! Lower taxes! Free market solves all!"
I never said "free market solves all", I merely said that those that commit crimes should be held accountable. I don't believe that the government should spent over 800 billion dollars trying to keep a stupid idea like the F-35 alive because it gives congressmen and senators votes. And finally, last time I checked the rampant militarization of the police force, The US government killing US citizens without a trial, and spying on every man, woman, and child in case they do something bad counts as "Stepping on us."
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5765 on: January 24, 2014, 10:12:12 pm »

So, corporations should have the right to do it but government? You guys went full libertarian.

So let me argue as I would against a libertarian: Corporations are not your friends. They are ruthlessly devoted to profit, and history shows that are far less benevolent then the government given the same powers. You speak of minor differences in service? I beg to differ. Google has control of its market, and is just beginning to expand its power. Monopolies, which can and do easily form by throwing around economic instead of legal weight, could take the situation to new heights; moreover, their political will would be unstoppable, so now you have a key holder who will do everything in their power to squeeze you dry.

And about the Government, you seem to genuinely believe that it will act in your interests less then a corporation in the same case. Look at private vs public sector and see where things are. Corporations don't have any pretense about trying to screw you, and they are guaranteed to have no one looking it for you(Except of course for government regulators) And to have the audacity to complain about corporate influence controlling everything, and yet on the same page to think they should be able to do something like this.

To believe that corporations should have a right to do what you call unethical, but not government, Is just; I don't even know. Google is not a brick-and-mortar store, Facebook isn't, and they have a lot of info. Your premise requires that I have absolutely Zero trust in my government, and more trust in the inability of Corporations to abuse. I simply will not believe that. I prefer a government to a corporation, simply, and nothing can be said that will convince me otherwise.

What are Google and Facebook going to do with my data that I need to worry about?  Yeah, the stuff they gather has lots of potential for abuse, but the main form of abuse I'm aware of is what the government does with it after taking it from them.

I have some control in my relationship with businesses that collect my data as I do business with them.  I know what interactions I've had with that business, and know that any of the nature and content of those interactions could be recorded.  This means that even if they overstep their bounds, I can understand the extent of their capability to do so and manage it somewhat.  Unless their collection of information extends beyond the bounds of my agreements and interaction with them, in which case I heavily oppose and can probably find legal recourse, I know that there are limitations to what they are able to know about me and my behavior influences those limitations.

When the government abuses data collection, there is fuck all I can do about it.  I can't even assume the boundaries of my own privacy.

There is also reason to accept data collection by businesses to an extent.  I like the services that Google provides.  I like that I don't have to pay money directly for those services.  I pay with data.  They collect data and use that data both to enhance their services and collect money through advertising.  I understand this, and am willing to accept the inconveniences their business model may sometimes cause me.

The government's data collection programs offer me zero benefit.  The only benefit their data collection programs even propose to offer is safety, but they really make me feel a lot less safe.

And I'm aware of some contradiction within my stance.  That I see the government being abused as a tool of the wealthy elite, but I'll allow some of the same behavior from the corporations directed by those same wealthy elite.  I have two answers. 

First and most simply:  one more reason I'm anti-capitalist. 

Second, I understand that I can't have it all.  Risk and gain go hand in hand.  If I want to interact with other human beings and reap the benefits of those interactions, I have to share information with them.  After I've shared information with a person, I understand that what they do with it is beyond my control.  The most perfect vision of utopia could not change this.  Do we not share intimate details of ourselves in order to forge meaningful relationships with others, even though you're giving them the power to destroy you?  We do this, because we gain something valuable from it, right?  It's up to each person to decide what risks are worth accepting.  The situations with businesses that collect information aren't ideal and I absolutely do worry about it, but I accept and manage them with agency in direct balance with my own quality of life.  The government's data collection programs are simple invasion and nothing else.  If Google is like a shitty friend that gossips about the secrets I share with them, the NSA is a stalker who breaks into my home to watch me sleep at night.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5766 on: January 24, 2014, 10:25:49 pm »

For me, it isn't so much what corporations DO with the data, (but that does play a role. Their "profits over all!" Policy is incompatible with my privacy), but what they DO NOT do, concerning the information they collect and store.

For some recent examples:

Sony, and the hacking breaches.
Target, and the credit card scandals.

Big collections of very dangerous data simply shouldn't be collected, either by governments, who will use it to oppress, or by corporate interests, who collect it for big big profits, and entice big big criminals to come take the shiny.

The corporations need to have legal power to have big big data. They use the government as an example of why they should have it. Corporations want big big data. As such, they want government to have even bigger data, because it helps them get away with it themselves.

Governments want corporations to have big big data, because they can subpoena it, and save lots of money on the collection end of things.

They scratch each other's backs.

Neither should be allowed the shiny. There are other ways to make money. They don't need big big data. They don't need to destroy my privacy.
Logged

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5767 on: January 24, 2014, 10:44:16 pm »

There are other ways to make money. They don't need big big data. They don't need to destroy my privacy.
... providing they want to see massive reductions in profit margin. Corps (businesses in general) want big data because information == profit, flat out. The better their understanding of the consumer base, the more able they are to make profit. Especially in a 24/7 heavily interconnected world, to be behind on the data is effectively to be dead. Without that and the flexibility and responsiveness it brings to businesses, competing with companies that do have that information is frankly impossible, especially over the long run. All other things being equal, the company with more information will outperform (and effectively kill, given enough time) the company without.

Basically, you'd need some other message if you were going to push through better privacy controls with any degree of corporate acceptance. Because cutting back and cutting off data collection, in just about any way, is saying "We're going to gouge out your eyes, break your hands, and hamstring you" to competing business entities. You're going to need either a really damn big stick or a helluva' carrot to get them to not fight that with every ounce of resources they have available.

Which isn't to say m'not personally pretty ready to get out the icepicks, hammers, and tendon cutters, but part of figuring out how to get that done is knowing just what you're trying to do, from the perspective of the proverbial enemy.

... though it's probably notable those examples you mention have considerably less to do with big data type stuff than it does with simple customer convenience. Those problems weren't symptoms of rampant corporate privacy invasion, they were symptoms of an economy going digital and certain (idiot) companies deciding to skimp on security (and/or hiring bloody idiots somewhere along the lines, either/or).
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5768 on: January 24, 2014, 10:52:56 pm »

Indeed, it is about them hiring imbeciles for security-- but it might also not be.

You get what you pay for, and if what you are willing to pay for is incompetence, it means you don't appreciate what you are actually trying to do or get for that money.

That's usually the big thing there-- improved security makes it harder on customer relations, because security is a barrier. That's its purpose.  It can and often does get in the way of easy use of a service, and costs money. From the business end, that's BOTH "making less than we could be", and "Spending money to make less!".

For the same reasons that they won't willingly accept not being allowed to collect big data, they won't be willing to properly protect that data.

Logged

10ebbor10

  • Bay Watcher
  • DON'T PANIC
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5769 on: January 25, 2014, 03:04:54 am »

Anyway, the US is apparently rapidly running out of Pentorbital, and other lethal drugs, because of an European counter-death sentence boycot. Really, they started using untested mixtures and using fake compagnies to buy supplies;

On that point, it's not just prisons but also hospitals that are running out.
Logged

alway

  • Bay Watcher
  • 🏳️‍⚧️
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5770 on: January 25, 2014, 03:22:12 am »

For some recent examples:

Sony, and the hacking breaches.
Target, and the credit card scandals.
That isn't an example of Big Data. That's an example of "using the databases necessary to process transactions."

This is big data (quite a good read, though it meanders at times; I highly recommend reading through it all): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all
So, summary version:
1. Target wanted to influence shoppers to permanently change their habits to shop at Target, rather than their competitors; as is the goal of all companies.
2. Studies show that during periods of great change in your life, you are much more accepting of changes to secondary, unrelated behaviors.
3. Target chooses to target pregnancy in particular, since it is both one of the larges period of change in a consumer's life, and influences a high-value family unit consisting of several individuals, rather than just one. In particular, they target mothers.
4. However, this requires Target to determine who is pregnant before they give birth, since that is when they are in the period of maximum change, and they want to preempt competitors targeting new mothers using public birth records.
5. Using statistical methods (simple Bayesian Artificial Intelligence methods), Target is able to predict to a high degree of accuracy who is pregnant, many months in advance, and even before they begin to appear visibly pregnant.
6. Target sends out coupon catalogs in the mail; these have been custom tailored to the individual, with coupons for baby supplies and other things pregnant women are likely to be thinking about buying.
7. [BACKLASH] Consumers get creeped out by targeted advertising which reveals that Target knows they are pregnant (many months before they give birth even), in a seeming violation of privacy. Since not many people understand just how easy Bayesian AI methods can extract information from seemingly unrelated data, it seems really creepy because it implies Target has access to their medical records, or similar; which isn't true, but it's the only logical answer to the average consumer.
The example given is quite interesting; a teenage girl receives such ads; the parent comes into a Target store absolutely livid that his daughter was getting pregnancy ads despite being a teenager... The parent later apologizes after finding out that his daughter was actually pregnant. Target knew about her pregnancy before she actually told anyone about it, based simply on basic Bayesian AI techniques applied to her purchases over the preceding period of time.
8. Target modifies targeted advertising, sending the same coupons for things pregnant women are likely to be thinking about, but interspersed with random unrelated items like lawnmowers, bicycles, ect. And thus, they avoid creeping out consumers while still doing exactly the same things behind the scenes.

Welcome to modern big data marketing.


And the economic results for Target?
Quote
Soon after the new ad campaign began, Target’s Mom and Baby sales exploded. The company doesn’t break out figures for specific divisions, but between 2002 — when Pole was hired — and 2010, Target’s revenues grew from $44 billion to $67 billion. In 2005, the company’s president, Gregg Steinhafel, boasted to a room of investors about the company’s “heightened focus on items and categories that appeal to specific guest segments such as mom and baby.”
« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 03:41:40 am by alway »
Logged

GreatJustice

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☭The adventure continues (refresh)☭
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5771 on: January 25, 2014, 08:12:03 am »

Wow, I come back to the thread and discover I don't really need to make the libertarian case because everyone else beat me to it.

I'll add, though, that corporations, while certainly being untrustworthy, are comparatively easier to deal with, avoid, and so on. About the most malicious thing they'll do, besides giving it to the government for some reason, is give it to advertising companies who will bombard you with "personalized" advertisements. Besides data collection, anyhow, the power of corporations has a tendency to stem from some sort of government support regardless.
Logged
The person supporting regenerating health, when asked why you can see when shot in the eye justified it as 'you put on an eyepatch'. When asked what happens when you are then shot in the other eye, he said that you put an eyepatch on that eye. When asked how you'd be able to see, he said that your first eye would have healed by then.

Professional Bridge Toll Collector?

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5772 on: January 25, 2014, 09:49:51 am »

Oh, to be fair, there's still some pretty bloody malicious things being done with that data, far beyond personalized advertisements -- you better damn sure believe scammers and con artists leaning on social engineering are using it to find targets*, and that's without getting into stuff like what some corps get up to outside the border or the types of pressure some of them roll out in certain situations. There is still plenty of abuse and room for abuse, some of it pretty damn nasty, that data collection either allows or aids and abets.

Corp abuse is less likely to end up with you in jail, though. Destitute, homeless? Sure. In the hospital or dead? Occasionally (and it's considerably more likely with gov. abuse, as we've seen with counter-protest activities). But usually not dragged out of your house and home and thrown into one of the world's worst prison systems (if we're sticking with the US, of course), with all that entails.

Still can get pretty bloody bad, but it's comparatively less of an issue (and arguably one you'd have more trouble legislating against.), which is potential reason to focus on government use before dealing with commercial if they can't be fixed in one go.

*Big data is pretty much the exact reason my grandparents constantly get calls from bastards trying to rip 'em off.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5773 on: January 25, 2014, 12:32:40 pm »

Sure, I made some of the same points a libertarian would, but I did not make a completely libertarian case. 

I pointed out that one of the reasons I'm more willing to accept data collection by businesses is there's a chance of legal recourse if a business goes too far.  That means granting government power to limit and punish business behavior.  Not a very libertarian thing to say as I understand. 

I also said that the fact capitalism provides unique incentives for personal data to be abused (from minor inconveniences to identity theft) is one of the many reasons I'm anti-capitalist.  But as long as capitalism is how society functions, those risks will be a cost of participation in society.  On the other hand, there is no reason government can't function without its massive data collection programs.  I have no reason to accept them whatsoever.  I only have reasons to oppose them.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: FJ's Murrican Politics Megathread 2: So dysfunction. Much Congress. Wow.
« Reply #5774 on: January 25, 2014, 02:43:46 pm »

Actually, most libertarians I've talked to say "If a business fucks up, the customers will sue them. Don't need government to regulate them!" so if anything that's a pretty libertarian thing to say. :P

Of course, they never think of how you can sue them if what they're doing isn't illegal, i.e. regulated. :I
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.
Pages: 1 ... 383 384 [385] 386 387 ... 667