“To that end, I propose a Data Bill of Rights. It should have two components: The first would specify how much control we may exert over how our individual information is used for important decisions, and the second would introduce federally enforced rules on how algorithms should be monitored more generally.”
Source: Congress Is Missing the Point on Facebook – Bloomberg
“…so many of the data scientists that are in work right now think of themselves as technicians and think that they can blithely follow textbook definitions of optimisation, without considering the wider consequences of their work. So, when they choose to optimise to some kind of ratio of false positives or false negatives, for example, they are not required by their bosses or their educational history to actually work out what that will mean to the people affected by the algorithms they’re optimising. Which means that they don’t really have any kind of direct connection to the worldly consequences of their work.”
“…we think that data people are magical and that they have any kind of wisdom. What they actually have is a technical ability without wisdom.”
Source: To work for society, data scientists need a hippocratic oath with teeth | WIRED UK
“I don’t use Facebook for ethical and moral reasons. As a service, it is a net negative to our society. It has helped amplify the polarization that has always existed. So why then should I own their stock?”
All I care is that we get some sort of a larger data regulation in place which doesn’t allow this and future Facebooks to abuse the rights of citizens. But given the state of our politics, that too is wishful thinking! After all, if a company can employ 500 people for its propaganda arm, you think they won’t hire a thousand to literally swamp the swamp.
Source: First $100 Billion (decline) is the hardest – Om Malik
rnbn 