Editing Talk:1390: Research Ethics
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
It's very deliberate. The illusion demonstrates what the brain chooses not to see. Facebook is making some content not visible to us as an experiment. There really is far less subtext to this than you think there is. There isn't some deep meaning. It was an experiment to see if we would see it. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 07:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | It's very deliberate. The illusion demonstrates what the brain chooses not to see. Facebook is making some content not visible to us as an experiment. There really is far less subtext to this than you think there is. There isn't some deep meaning. It was an experiment to see if we would see it. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 07:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
"Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's <b><i>governing our lives</i></b>". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | "Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's <b><i>governing our lives</i></b>". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
Line 14: | Line 10: | ||
I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
− | + | ||
I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
I read the title text as bitter sarcasm. And it plays in to the message in another comic, I don't know which, about someone being warned not to place his private information in the custody of another without strict limits on the power of that other. (I'm playing the world's tiniest violin" was the punch line on that one. Also used by The Kids In the Hall!) | I read the title text as bitter sarcasm. And it plays in to the message in another comic, I don't know which, about someone being warned not to place his private information in the custody of another without strict limits on the power of that other. (I'm playing the world's tiniest violin" was the punch line on that one. Also used by The Kids In the Hall!) | ||
The impact by those who manage and manipulate information is seldom clear and both it's motivation and it's impact on our decisions remains not only largely unnoticed in daily life but also unknowable. Just because we give control of information to another doesn't mean we agree to be either a lab rat or open to manipulation by them whether we recognize it or not. Whether it's someone trying to achieve power (government) or someone trying to earn a profit (business), the burden-of-proof should be on them that the effect is benign. I know this sounds a bit Ayn Randian, a person whose politics I deeply distrust, but even scary people can get things right some of the time.[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog | The impact by those who manage and manipulate information is seldom clear and both it's motivation and it's impact on our decisions remains not only largely unnoticed in daily life but also unknowable. Just because we give control of information to another doesn't mean we agree to be either a lab rat or open to manipulation by them whether we recognize it or not. Whether it's someone trying to achieve power (government) or someone trying to earn a profit (business), the burden-of-proof should be on them that the effect is benign. I know this sounds a bit Ayn Randian, a person whose politics I deeply distrust, but even scary people can get things right some of the time.[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog | ||
− | |||
− | |||
+ | The title text is an oblique reference to the implications of recent SCOTUS ruling on corporations having similar rights as people (albeit to do with religion, as opposed to privacy), no? | ||
The SCOTUS ruling follows a US Supreme Court decision in the late 19th century that "A corporation is a person". Ironically, the justification for this ruling was based on a law clerk's note in the margin of a previous decision stating that the said previous decision could create the situation where a corporation has the same rights as a person. The decision at hand was to decide the validity of a presidential election and the the Supreme Court took the notes made by the clerk as law. it's clear the court knew what it's ruling meant, but it's not clear what the courts motivation was for accepting the clerks notes as if it had been an already rendered decision![[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog | The SCOTUS ruling follows a US Supreme Court decision in the late 19th century that "A corporation is a person". Ironically, the justification for this ruling was based on a law clerk's note in the margin of a previous decision stating that the said previous decision could create the situation where a corporation has the same rights as a person. The decision at hand was to decide the validity of a presidential election and the the Supreme Court took the notes made by the clerk as law. it's clear the court knew what it's ruling meant, but it's not clear what the courts motivation was for accepting the clerks notes as if it had been an already rendered decision![[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog | ||
This comic has some relationship to http://xkcd.com/1150/. {{unsigned ip|141.101.103.215}} | This comic has some relationship to http://xkcd.com/1150/. {{unsigned ip|141.101.103.215}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
The comic I mentioned in an above comment is Infrastructures http://xkcd.com/743/ [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 12:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog | The comic I mentioned in an above comment is Infrastructures http://xkcd.com/743/ [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 12:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog |