Big Data Practices Contribute to Inequality

[spartican]

Hey all,

I wrote an article as a part of a project I'm in on the subject of Big Data and its contributions to inequality. For those interested, the article is here:

http://clusory.com/big-data-does-it-reinforce-inequality-clusory-connections/

I was dumbfounded by the sheer number of ways in which Big Data practices could be used to perpetuate inequality.

Notably, I noticed that nobody who was defending Big Data was defending Big Data from a philosophical perspective, ie: "Collecting loads of data on individuals is OK because [insert x reason]". Instead, all of the arguments started from "Once you've accepted that collecting loads of data is OK, look at all the cool things you can do with it!"

Am I wrong in assuming that no philosophical defense exists? And if I'm right, what should be done about it? Should we succumb to submitting our digital lives to scrutiny because there's nothing else that can be done about it?

 

[Dessicant]

Actually, I reject the notion that inequality is anything but an individual problem. I also reject the notion that everyone is equal. Some people are better than other people, and those people should be paid more and should expect to enjoy a better life.

Income inequality, in particular, is a problem to be solved by the individual with the perceived lack of income. In order to correct a deficiency of income, the avenues are clear, but can be distilled to two words: Get Better.

In more words, become more valuable to others, such that they want to pay you more money.

As far as Big Data, you are free to avoid using voluntary social media that utilizes your information to generate advertising. You can also use an anonymizing browser such as Tor to avoid detection by marketing programs.

The attachment of the word "Big" to anything is a hackneyed cliche anymore and is pretty much meaningless. Big Oil, Big Data, Big BS. We live in an Internet infused world, which is a good thing. The amount of data floating around is obviously and organically going to expand exponentially and unavoidably.

It's going to get big. So we attach the "Big" pejorative to enable egalitarian-collectivist philosophies to run amok?

I reject that. There is no Big Data. There are efforts to utilize personal data to assist with marketing and making money. "Big" Deal. It's a good thing, but if you don't want to participate, stay off stupid Facebook, or anonymize your Internet presence and searching using any number of available tools and techniques. And back to the original proposition, it is not the job of technology companies to address the individual problem of income inequality. If you don;t like how much money you are making, it is 100% up to you to change it, not your fellow man, and not Google.

 

[spartican]

Dessicant, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'd like to direct you to the article, where Progressive's Snapshot program is described. It determines auto insurance rates based on driving criterion. Included in these criterion are factors such as what time of the night you're driving, and how long you're driving. For some people, taking night jobs located a significant distance away is the only way they can afford to put food on the table.

What agency do they have over that situation? How can they improve themselves so that Progressive doesn't charge them increased rates and perpetuate their poverty?

 

[Dessicant]

Dessicant, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'd like to direct you to the article, where Progressive's Snapshot program is described. It determines auto insurance rates based on driving criterion. Included in these criterion are factors such as what time of the night you're driving, and how long you're driving. For some people, taking night jobs located a significant distance away is the only way they can afford to put food on the table.

What agency do they have over that situation? How can they improve themselves so that Progressive doesn't charge them increased rates and perpetuate their poverty?

They can decide not to participate in the Snapshot program. It is completely optional. Furthermore, the time of day you drive is one factor, but not the most important factor. Your braking habits are far more indicative of your probability of having an accident. So if you drive at night and participate in Snapshot, yet drive gently and safely, as you should with or without Snapshot, your rates will be lowered significantly, though perhaps not as low as a gentle daylight driver.

In fact Snapshot is not only designed to report on your driving habits, but to modify them. The loud beep that occurs when you brake too hard is designed to condition you to a less abrupt driving style and decrease your chance of an accident. So in this case, Big Data is not only making you more wealthy, it is attempting to keep you alive, enabling you to enjoy your newfound wealth.

 

[alkemyst]

My brother studies Big Data, shows the Bipartisan stuff is just gang mentality and most independents actually vote Dem or Rep most of the time, every time. It's a shell game.

 

[Craig234]

Dessicant, in my opinion your post is based on a low-information ideological error.

You understand the small issue - Person 1 deserves to make twice as much as person 2 - but you have no idea whatsoever about the larger and more important issues.

The issues of income inequality have basically nothing to do with 'get better'.

You need to learn to appreciate how economies work, and how small an issue 'do better, get more' is to ensuring an economy works well and works for everyone.

Hint 1: personal and corporate agendas are the opposite of the 'competitive free market' at the end of the day.

The hardest dollars people ever make are the ones from 'honest competition' and they're rather avoid that and make much easier dollars.

For example, do you have any clue how much the defense industry is set up to benefit the participants ahead of the 'defense' mission?

I'd like to see you try to build a better mousetrap and go take a contract away from Northrup or Boeing.

But more importantly, excessive income inequality reduces wealth, reduces growth, reduces opportunity, reduces freed, reduces democracy.

It only helps the few at the top have a bigger piece of the pie, and even they lose out as they eventually shrink the pie.

Everyone below them loses money, until eventually just keeping them alive is too much.

You would need to understand things like the cycle of the economy to appreciate that - the difference between the 'plutocratic' model where the economy is focused on benefitting a few, and the egalitarian model where there is some productive inequality, but a much larger middle class, where more do well and which creates more wealth that is more distributed.

You have a very simplistic notion about economics. Want to be a billionare? Work hard!

That can only work for very few people, and there's a lot more than work hard.

 

[Dessicant]

Dessicant, in my opinion your post is based on a low-information ideological error.

You understand the small issue - Person 1 deserves to make twice as much as person 2 - but you have no idea whatsoever about the larger and more important issues.

The issues of income inequality have basically nothing to do with 'get better'.

You need to learn to appreciate how economies work, and how small an issue 'do better, get more' is to ensuring an economy works well and works for everyone.

Hint 1: personal and corporate agendas are the opposite of the 'competitive free market' at the end of the day.

The hardest dollars people ever make are the ones from 'honest competition' and they're rather avoid that and make much easier dollars.

For example, do you have any clue how much the defense industry is set up to benefit the participants ahead of the 'defense' mission?

I'd like to see you try to build a better mousetrap and go take a contract away from Northrup or Boeing.

But more importantly, excessive income inequality reduces wealth, reduces growth, reduces opportunity, reduces freed, reduces democracy.

It only helps the few at the top have a bigger piece of the pie, and even they lose out as they eventually shrink the pie.

Everyone below them loses money, until eventually just keeping them alive is too much.

You would need to understand things like the cycle of the economy to appreciate that - the difference between the 'plutocratic' model where the economy is focused on benefitting a few, and the egalitarian model where there is some productive inequality, but a much larger middle class, where more do well and which creates more wealth that is more distributed.

You have a very simplistic notion about economics. Want to be a billionare? Work hard!

That can only work for very few people, and there's a lot more than work hard.

Our basic views are at odds, so of course everything built on those views is also at odds. So the mechanics of what is built upon our premises are not worth debating. I believe your basic view is collectivism-utilitarianism. That, quoting Spock, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." That the economy is a tool of society, to be run by governments and other policy makers and experts, for the purpose of making the average person or the "little people" comfortable and happy, even if it means curtailing basic freedoms.

My basic view is that the economy is not the property of anyone, but a sum of the economic activity of its participants. Nothing more. I don't believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In fact, I don't recognize need as a claim at all. I don't accept that because one, or many, have a need, that they have the right to take what they need from others.

Moving to income inequality. I don't care about it. Your income is not my problem, and my income is not your problem. I am not my brothers keeper, and neither are you. Everyone needs income, and everyone has a right to act rationally in a free society and a free economy to trade time and/or talent for money to survive and enjoy.

If you have little talent and are lazy, poverty will be the logical result. If you are driven and talented, there is potential for great wealth. If you are like most people, in the middle, you will have a good life, but will have to work diligently and make sure you always have something to offer in trade, but probably won't own a yacht. If you are handicapped or useless, you have the right to ask others for help. If everyone says no, you have a right to die in the street.

So, you believe in collectivism-utilitarianism with curtailment of freedom as an acceptable alternative in the interests of the common good. I believe in individualism and freedom and reject the idea of the common good altogether.

These viewpoints are incompatible and cannot be argued without one of us giving up our basic moral convictions, and obviously that's not happening!

So I believe the correct forum behavior would be for us to state our convictions and move on. Which we have now done.

 

[spartican]

Dessicant, in an ideal world we'd be able to convince you that life is far more than a sum of individuals, that pretty much every convenience you've come to expect from your life wouldn't be possible without structures far beyond your individual control.

Your analysis would work fine in a world whose societal structures were constructed by impartial robots, with an eye towards equal opportunity for all. However, that is not the case. Our structures were built by humans, and humans have faults, biases, etc. Ignoring those and saying that one's lot in life is simply the sum of his efforts is misguided at best.

However, you appear to be convinced that your tenets are unassailable, so I don't think we'll have much success.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I believe in individualism and freedom and reject the idea of the common good altogether.

How do you get around the problem that once you reject the common good you also reject freedom? If there is no common good to be upheld by an agency that, by social contract, has been given the collective-utilitarian force to do so, then freedom is nothing more then what one person can wrestle from another in a power struggle. Eventually this leads to one person winning, and that person sets himself up as a monarch.

Ultimately this is the problem with a free market, eventually someone wins and crushes all other competition.

 

[piasabird]

So are you making the argument that companies like GOOGLE and how the government sells census bureau and drivers license bureau data evil? Perhaps you are saying it makes criminals trying to hide a lot more difficult. There are some things people might not want known like how many time they had abortions or whether they purchased pharmaceuticals for aids or Herpes. One area to look at is how the medical data is collected under the ACA.

 

[Craig234]

Dessicant, I do have to say I don't think you accurately represented my views - it was a straw man about giving up more freedom than I think is needed, for example.

You're trying to fit my position into something that is a container in your ideology, and that's not accurate.

 

[cbrunny]

I skimmed to the conclusion and read about three or four paragraphs. Your argument is based on the notion that in order for Big Data to be not-bad, it must serve to reduce inequality. By extension, if a thing does not serve to reduce inequality, it is not not-bad. (If a thing serves to reduce inequality, it is not-bad).

By further extension, you're suggesting "bad" is defined as "inequality" and no other measure. Which is to say, if a thing does not serve to reduce inequality, it does not reduce inequality.

Of course that's true.

But your concept of "bad" is far too narrow, which explains why your concept of "good" is restricted as well. Naturally, with these definitions, it is the only conclusion possible to reach.

But I'm more confused by your posts, which seem to state that you believe this is somehow a philosophical reason not to collect data. It is not. It is an empirical argument based on empirical data. "Inequality" is driven by empirical data.

If you want to make a philosophic argument about how your personal information should not be collected it would most likely be based on human rights, or personal rights, or individual rights. I would argue that you do have the right to not have your information collected. You have the right to exercise these rights. The cost of exercising these rights is limitations in privilege. E.g. you gain the privilege of, say, Facebook, if you agree to forfeit your right to protecting the information you provide.

And with that, I'll just quickly add that if you have a conversation about rights, you must have a conversation about privilege.

 

[spartican]

But I'm more confused by your posts, which seem to state that you believe this is somehow a philosophical reason not to collect data. It is not. It is an empirical argument based on empirical data. "Inequality" is driven by empirical data.

Doesn't the empirical reality make the philosophical argument very easy to formulate? Ie: Philosophically, one shouldn't participate in systems that are empirically perpetuating inequality because you're then contributing to that empirical reality.

The cost of exercising these rights is limitations in privilege. E.g. you gain the privilege of, say, Facebook, if you agree to forfeit your right to protecting the information you provide.

The problem with this, to my eyes, is that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have become sufficiently ingrained within our social fabric to where there are tangible social downsides to not participating in these platforms. In a world where social media is sufficiently ingrained without our culture to make the relevant choice "Should I NOT engage in these platforms?" rather than "Should I engage in these platforms?" it's absolutely vital that people know exactly what the dynamics of making this choice are.

My main contention, as of now, is that there's very little being done by these major corporations to make it known that they're drawing connections from user data in the ways that they are - mostly because there's little incentive for them to do so.

 

[cbrunny]

Doesn't the empirical reality make the philosophical argument very easy to formulate? Ie: Philosophically, one shouldn't participate in systems that are empirically perpetuating inequality because you're then contributing to that empirical reality.

That's certainly a morality argument. Morals are individualistic, meaning that each person interprets the morality differently. Those that are more individual-rights focused won't care at all about this argument, much less spend the time to argue against it. You could make the same argument about capitalism (with varying degrees of success) but that's been around a few years longer than Big Data, and is arguably doing more harm (depending on your varying degrees of interpretation).

The problem with this, to my eyes, is that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have become sufficiently ingrained within our social fabric to where there are tangible social downsides to not participating in these platforms. In a world where social media is sufficiently ingrained without our culture to make the relevant choice "Should I NOT engage in these platforms?" rather than "Should I engage in these platforms?" it's absolutely vital that people know exactly what the dynamics of making this choice are.

No, I just.. no. It's a choice. It is not a requirement of life, not even a social life. The internet is not ubiquitous, much less social media or smartphones or car insurance chips.

My main contention, as of now, is that there's very little being done by these major corporations to make it known that they're drawing connections from user data in the ways that they are - mostly because there's little incentive for them to do so.

That's not philosophic, but ok. I understand what you're saying but I don't understand the significance (probably because I didn't read your article).

 

[spartican]

That's certainly a morality argument.

Doesn't philosophy encompass morality? If there's a distinction, I'm not sure that it makes a tangible difference in terms of what I'm arguing.

It's a choice. It is not a requirement of life, not even a social life. The internet is not ubiquitous, much less social media or smartphones or car insurance chips.

The question of whether Big Data is contributing to inequality is not a relevant issue for those without Internet connections. These questions of inequality are focused particularly on Americans with access to the various forms of communication made available by the effects of capitalism.

I understand what you're saying but I don't understand the significance (probably because I didn't read your article).

Obviously, I think you should read the article, but the TL;DR is that many people don't realize that Facebook, Google, and other Internet companies are not only gateways, but mouths. Ie. in addition to connecting you to the services you Google, Facebook, etc. they build profiles on your Internet activity that are then sold to other corporations. Basically, our internet activity is being analyzed in ways that have never been utilized before, to deleterious effect.

 

[cbrunny]

Doesn't philosophy encompass morality? If there's a distinction, I'm not sure that it makes a tangible difference in terms of what I'm arguing.

Agree. My point is that morality is individualistic, and your argument is meaningless to many, disputed by many, and supported by many.

The question of whether Big Data is contributing to inequality is not a relevant issue for those without Internet connections. These questions of inequality are focused particularly on Americans with access to the various forms of communication made available by the effects of capitalism.

If Big Data is bad because it increases inequality, it should also be bad for those that do not have internet connections. Probably in different ways, but still bad. Regardless, my point is that everyone has the right to privacy, but it comes at the cost of privilege.

Obviously, I think you should read the article, but the TL;DR is that many people don't realize that Facebook, Google, and other Internet companies are not only gateways, but mouths. Ie. in addition to connecting you to the services you Google, Facebook, etc. they build profiles on your Internet activity that are then sold to other corporations. Basically, our internet activity is being analyzed in ways that have never been utilized before, to deleterious effect.

But it also creates and perpetuates wealth, infuses the global economy, and makes the lives of many many people way way better. Our internet activity is being analyzed in ways that have never been utilized before, to amazingly positive effects.

Let me be clear. I don't disagree that it is a contributing factor to perpetuating or increasing inequality. Your argument is just not coherent or comprehensive enough to be acceptable, and basically ignores the good that big data does on the assumption that the good is empirical while the bad is philosophic (and it seems in your mind philosophy > empirical evidence). If you want to truly study or analyze this, it would be well worth the investment in time. It would take a PhD dissertation to even scratch the surface though.

 

[spartican]

From a scholastic view, you're likely right in suggesting my answer isn't anywhere near definitive. However, from a practical perspective, I'm not sure my argument needs to be as comprehensive as you're suggesting for it to be valid.

I'm obviously no scholar on computer science or business ethics. I simply think that more people should be aware of how these practices have contributed to a model of society that we still don't understand the full ramifications of.

If we're holding to academically rigorous discourse, I'd say that saying Big Data "makes the lives of many, many people way, way better" is unsubstantiated. My cursory research into the issue did more to raise red flags in my mind than it did to persuade me that Big Data is creating net gains for society. Does it have the potential to create the unequivocal boon you're suggesting? Certainly. But I wouldn't say that an improved Amazon shopping suggestion mechanism and better Google results have made my life "way, way better". It's going to take concerted effort and an awareness of the types of algorithms that are being used to define us. So long as I can point some meager attention to that, I'd say the point of the article has been made.

 

[OverVolt]

They can decide not to participate in the Snapshot program. It is completely optional. Furthermore, the time of day you drive is one factor, but not the most important factor. Your braking habits are far more indicative of your probability of having an accident. So if you drive at night and participate in Snapshot, yet drive gently and safely, as you should with or without Snapshot, your rates will be lowered significantly, though perhaps not as low as a gentle daylight driver.

In fact Snapshot is not only designed to report on your driving habits, but to modify them. The loud beep that occurs when you brake too hard is designed to condition you to a less abrupt driving style and decrease your chance of an accident. So in this case, Big Data is not only making you more wealthy, it is attempting to keep you alive, enabling you to enjoy your newfound wealth.

So sign up for the snapshot program and get 30% off your 2x'd rates. Then get back to me.

 

[Dessicant]

So sign up for the snapshot program and get 30% off your 2x'd rates. Then get back to me.

I don't want Snapshot. I can afford my insurance easily. And, I drive aggressively and competently. Snapshot would not think that I am safe, and would probably revoke my drivers license after a short sample of my driving.

Nonetheless, the OP was looking for an answer on how to avoid the Big Data injustice of Snapshot. I was pointing out how easy it was: don't sign up.

 

[Dessicant]

From a scholastic view, you're likely right in suggesting my answer isn't anywhere near definitive. However, from a practical perspective, I'm not sure my argument needs to be as comprehensive as you're suggesting for it to be valid.

I'm obviously no scholar on computer science or business ethics. I simply think that more people should be aware of how these practices have contributed to a model of society that we still don't understand the full ramifications of.

If we're holding to academically rigorous discourse, I'd say that saying Big Data "makes the lives of many, many people way, way better" is unsubstantiated. My cursory research into the issue did more to raise red flags in my mind than it did to persuade me that Big Data is creating net gains for society. Does it have the potential to create the unequivocal boon you're suggesting? Certainly. But I wouldn't say that an improved Amazon shopping suggestion mechanism and better Google results have made my life "way, way better". It's going to take concerted effort and an awareness of the types of algorithms that are being used to define us. So long as I can point some meager attention to that, I'd say the point of the article has been made.

If the Internet has done nothing else, it has saved all of us gargantuan amounts of time and money. Without any other positive factors, that single one is more than enough. The Internet gets a societal thumbs up.

Has it created privilege? Yes. Oh yes. Lots of it. And privilege is good. We need more of it. I want to live in the most privileged society on the face of the Earth. I want to live in a free society where vast amounts of crass materialism are open to all who work hard enough to earn the right to purchase it.

I reject the notion that one is born into debt or servitude by virtue of being lucky, either by having more talent, or better looks, or better parents than another. Or for that matter, by being born human instead of being born an insect.

In fact, the latest philosophical craze is attacking those who are better than others by attaching the universal pejorative known as privilege. It's a smear, and I reject it. Being talented, or good looking, or rich, or having excellent parents, are all positive and good. If you are born unlucky and don't have one or any of those things, that does not give you a right to attack those that do. Weakness is not a mortgage on the strong. Ugliness is not a mortgage on the attractive. Those without virtue or good qualities do not to get to dictate to those that have made themselves into higher quality human beings. We are NOT all created equal. We are NOT all equal. We do NOT have the same potential to achieve and excel. The world has a certain percentage of losers, and they don't get to make claims on those that are better.

Income inequality, and talent inequality, and personality inequality, and physical looks inequality. All irrelevant. You should get freedom, nothing more. If you are unlucky and someone else is lucky, too damned bad. Deal with it. Find a way to make yourself better by thinking outside the box.

Privilege. Always some new way for collectivists to justify collecting.

 

[piasabird]

So it is possible that Internet usage is having an effect on population migration. Who wants to live in the country with little or no Internet access?

 

[piasabird]

After the hurricane in NY city I wonder if the government around New York City even cares about the people. It did not take much to cause mass chaos and panic in a city that size. It really showed the lack of planning and resources and the crumbling infrastructure in New York City. I wonder where all their tax dollars went.

 

[Dessicant]

So it is possible that Internet usage is having an effect on population migration. Who wants to live in the country with little or no Internet access?

This is very true. I have gotten used to FIOS 75Mbps download and upload. I would never move to a location without this capability. So 99% of the United States is out of the question for me as to where I can live.

 

[KentState]

Obviously, I think you should read the article, but the TL;DR is that many people don't realize that Facebook, Google, and other Internet companies are not only gateways, but mouths. Ie. in addition to connecting you to the services you Google, Facebook, etc. they build profiles on your Internet activity that are then sold to other corporations. Basically, our internet activity is being analyzed in ways that have never been utilized before, to deleterious effect.

I currently work with Big Data for a various large company doing exactly what you describe. We take in hundreds of billions of data points and do build profiles. I wanted to get that out of the way as I do see this from the "other" side.

What I think that most don't realize is that companies want to do this to make money. In order to actually make money, the goal is to align your marketing efforts with your customers. The goal is to not take the data and do something evil and risk the relationship with the customer.

There are a couple points to take away, first I said customer. Meaning that privacy laws makes it very financially painful for a company to mix known with unknown. The companies that do Big Data correctly keep the data in silos and provide a mechanism to opt-out. Second, individuals have to take some responsibility in what they do online or in public spaces. If you openly share every detail about yourself without questioning it, then it can be used to market back against you. Why wouldn't a company want to talk to you in an appealing manor.

On the flip-side, I do feel that there needs to be a serious look at how data is collected, stored and distributed. The trail for input to final output is never clearly defined and most often tied to contract language dealing with a purchase. For example, we sign away so many rights to our data when purchasing a car or something like a cell phone. These are things that so many require in daily lives and it's not as simple as not owning one. Should our personal information become a commodity that we freely give away so we can drive to work?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The goal is to not take the data and do something evil and risk the relationship with the customer.

While I agree with most of what you said, this is not really a good statement. Very often the people that the data is collected from is not the customer for the company that is collecting the data. I am not Google's customer, I am it's product.