@snurb_dot_info @aral Any thoughts on this document? https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YKeZFSUc1j03b4lW9YXxGmhYEnFx3TSy68qCrX9BEI/edit … cc @rasmus_kleis
-
-
The core problem isn’t the access of academics to the data of people farming, it’s people farming. I find the focus to be in the wrong place when we look at a factory farm for human beings and instead of saying “that’s wrong”, we say, “we want a piece of the pie”. +
@anjabechmann1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
I think that’s too simplistic, and the misleading analogy doesn’t help the argument. We need independent scholarly research to understand _what_ is wrong, and to suggest how it may be fixed. If we simply walk away from these platforms, the operators will do what they want.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @snurb_dot_info @Info_Aus and
The operators do what they want already. You have zero algorithmic transparency into their operation. So, let’s: 1. Push for regulation of surveillance capitalists 2. Push for algorithmic transparency 3. Push for commons-based funding of decentralised alternatives
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @aral @snurb_dot_info and
Of course, with decentralised infrastructure, academics won’t have a rich, centralised treasure trove of data to use as they please. They’ll have to ask and get permission from every person involved in the study or have people opt in for studies… as it should be.
3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
(The rights of researchers do not trump the rights of the individuals being studied. Not unless we’re being colonial/anthropological in our approach. Even when it might benefit society as a whole we do not have the right to overlook the human rights of the individuals involved.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.