Tag: tech ethics

Together, we must send a universal humanistic response to those who claim a right to users’ private information about what should not and will not be tolerated.

If a business is built on misleading users on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, then it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform.

At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible. It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn’t come with a cost — of polarization, of lost trust and, yes, of violence.

Too many are still asking the question “how much can we get away with” when they need to be asking “what are the consequences”.

A social dilemma cannot be allowed to become a social catastrophe.

Source: Tim Cook on Privacy – YouTube

These are necessary words that Facebook deserves.

We are all accountable to the urgent work of building a more just, more equitable world

Source: Apple launches major new Racial Equity and Justice Initiative projects to challenge systemic racism, advance racial equity nationwide – Apple

True that. I might add that line to my “Just Sayin’” list.

See also:

Equity Literate Education: Fix Injustice, Not Kids

There is no path to equity that does not involve a direct confrontation with inequity.

Inequities are primarily power and privilege problems.

Security is the foundation of privacy. Privacy is a fundamental human right.

Apple’s privacy stance, the gist:

  • Security is the foundation of privacy.
  • Privacy is a fundamental human right.
  • Embody commitments to privacy with code.

That’s my takeaway from Craig Federighi’s keynote at the 10th Annual European Data Protection & Privacy Conference.

… the four key privacy principles that guide Apple.

  1. Not collecting unnecessary data through data minimization.
  2. Processing as much data on device as possible.
  3. Making it clear to customers what data is collected and giving them tools to control how that data is used.
  4. Keeping data safe through security, including Apple’s unique integration of hardware and software. Security is the foundation of privacy.

Source: Craig Federighi Shares Apple’s Four Privacy Principles in Conference Keynote – MacRumors

Now, others take the opposite approach. They gather, sell, and hoard as much of your personal information as they can. The result is a data-industrial complex, where shadowy actors work to infiltrate the most intimate parts of your life and exploit whatever they can find–whether to sell you something, to radicalize your views, or worse. — Craig Federighi

I agree with all of that. Props to Apple for pushing privacy and pissing off the right people.

Why Computing Belongs Within the Social Sciences

I agree. Computing is already a social science.

Computing has productized and popularized the worst of the social sciences, notably behaviorism.

Persuasion and Operant Conditioning: The Influence of B. F. Skinner in Big Tech and Ed-tech

Instead, adopt the best of social science so that we stop doing harm at scale.

Design is Tested at the Edges: Intersectionality, The Social Model of Disability, and Design for Real Life

I’m still waking up, and will be perpetually struggling with my awareness and complicity in all of this. As I continue to wake up, and become more vocal against the hand that feeds me, I am reminded of how important it is for us to acknowledge those who have been doing this all along. It is alright for us white male technologists to step up and become critical of what we have built, but we shouldn’t be taking the lead on defining how to fix all of this, assuming our regular domineering role in simultaneously fucking up the world, while also trying to fix it once we realize what idiots we’ve been. We need to make sure we are respectful of those who have been vocal all along, and work hard to shine a light on newer more diverse voices when it comes to speaking out, and crafting any plans to fix this mess. Our desire to be center stage is a big problem. We need to step back and develop a more thoughtful strategy as we move forward.

Source: Some Thoughts As We Go Through Our Internet Technology Awakening | Kin Lane

What if anything “good” about ed-tech this past decade was so overwhelmed by all the money funneled into the “bad” that the “good” didn’t matter one whit? What if all that “bad” meant any semblance of “good” was stifled, suffocated? What if, as David Kernohan has suggested, there wasn’t anything this past decade but technological disappointment? What if there wasn’t anything good about ed-tech?

I’m serious. Sit with that sentence a minute before you pipe up to defend your favorite app or social network or that cute robot your kids coded to move in a circle. What if there wasn’t anything good about ed-tech? What if ed-tech is totally inseparable from privatization, behavioral engineering, and surveillance? What if, by surrendering to the narrative that schools must be increasingly technological, we have neglected to support them in being be remotely human? What if we can never address the crises of our democracies, of our planet if we keep insisting on the benevolence of tech?

Source: HEWN, No. 337

Via:

Platforms are, in a sense, capitalism distilled to its essence. They are proudly experimental and maximally consequential, prone to creating externalities and especially disinclined to address or even acknowledge what happens beyond their rising walls. And accordingly, platforms are the underlying trend that ties together popular narratives about technology and the economy in general. Platforms provide the substructure for the “gig economy” and the “sharing economy”; they’re the economic engine of social media; they’re the architecture of the “attention economy” and the inspiration for claims about the “end of ownership.”

Source: Platform Companies Are Becoming More Powerful — but What Exactly Do They Want? – The New York Times

Via: The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade

“Move fast and break things” is an abomination if your goal is to create a healthy society. Taking shortcuts may be financially profitable in the short-term, but the cost to society is too great to be justified. In a healthy society, we accommodate differently abled people through accessibility standards, not because it’s financially prudent but because it’s the right thing to do. In a healthy society, we make certain that the vulnerable amongst us are not harassed into silence because that is not the value behind free speech. In a healthy society, we strategically design to increase social cohesion because binaries are machine logic not human logic.

Source: Facing the Great Reckoning Head-On – OneZero