Information Anxiety

[sus]

The thing is companies like Meta and Google have a presence in your online life even if you don't make direct use of their services. They're collecting your data regardless of whether you have a Facebook or Google account.

Link/unpack?

I understand how Google collects on users of Chrome, Pixel, their search tools, etc (presumably based on browser serial numbers and IPs).

How does Meta aggregate data about individuals who don't have Meta accounts? What does that look like?

 

[version]

I don't know the ins and outs, but there are plenty of sites which aren't Facebook yet have Facebook scripts running.

 

[catalog]

Yeah I have heard about this too, lot of 3rd party stuff, in the sense that eg you need a fb account to do a lot of standard stuff online.

 

[sufi]

Yeah I have heard about this too, lot of 3rd party stuff, in the sense that eg you need a fb account to do a lot of standard stuff online.

fb build profiles of people without accounts based on address books of fb users - so you have an account even if you don't have an account.

google are party to around 60% of email correspondence, even if you don't use gmail, it's likely that someone in that email thread does.

that type of data hoarding is not even a uniquely tech vice - eg. credit agencies

 

[sufi]

https://privacyinternational.org/examples/advertising
this information is making me anxious

 

[Clinamenic]

One of the things that excites me about DAOs and smart contracts, pinging @Clinamenic, is they would enable people to easily financially coordinate to only put money behind services that meet certain group-agreed criteria. So that collective bargaining is more possible, similar to the way unionizing works. Imagine a million people (or a billion dollars of capital) who have all entered a voluntary agreement to only pay for products manufactured with, say $20/hr wages. Their money (token holdings) literally cannot be transferred to companies that aren't on a white list, or are on a blacklist. And a small portion of the treasury's money pays for auditing and accounting of these lists.

Yeah I’ve been learning more about this “code is law” movement, or as LexDAO calls it, codeslaw.

Very promising in terms of possibilities for enshrining stakeholders rights, but also introduces some programmatic failure cases wherein some bug or edgecase within the code essentially prevents any recourse otherwise, recourse which would be possible if there were human arbiters who executively effectuated the will of the group. But of course with such positions comes a heightened possibility of corruption.

As it is now, there are ways to immutably distribute financial authority across an arbitrarily large group of people, EG a multisig with 50 signatories, but these solutions tend to entail logistically complex administration, and they also usually require a core team of people to not only put in the work to set it all up, but then to voluntarily dissolve their own centralized power.

It actually takes the communization concept of “self-abolition” into very concrete territory.

 

[Clinamenic]

The World Economic Forum just released a big ol’ handbook on DAO tools. And at Lobby3 we just nationality-gated the new DAO we’re building, using zero-knowledge cryptography.

The concept of the future being unevenly distributed is extremely pertinent here, as we are essentially operating at least two decades in advance of the leading societal status quos (unless smaller states somewhere have been able to iterate this quickly as well).