Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
64 lines (28 loc) · 5.4 KB

test.md

File metadata and controls

64 lines (28 loc) · 5.4 KB
Raw

Week 1: Big Data and (Free Information) Markets

Intro

  • What's the point of tutorials?
  • Why use HackMD?
  • Who are we?
  • Who are you?

Discussion Questions

Companies have always tried to target consumers to the best of their ability. How, if at all, have the internet and mobile technologies changed this dynamic?

What are some of the benefits of data-rich markets?

What are some of the drawbacks?

Reading Questions

Schroeder (aka Ralph) traces a dialectic of perspectives on "big data" from Marx to Hayek to Weber. Which of the three views do you find most compelling and why?

  • Marxian philosophy and Hayekian philosophy are at extremes that don't really allow for space to consider both pros and cons. Weberian philosophy seems to allows for neutrality, or that the concept of using big data in markets can have both its pros and cons.
    • Subpoint.

  • Marxian idea of protecting against extraction of profit from individuals makes sense but paying people for their data doesn't make sense as a model - Data does not lend itself to ownership, both due to its low monetary value to the individual and high social value to others. Data should not be commodified by the ‘right to own’ and a ‘need to sell’, but its uses should be explained in advocacy for a ‘right to know’ - kind of like GDPR format - so I agree with the Marxist 'give it back to the people' thing but not if this is framed in a financial transfer, only if its framed in a 'knowledge as power' transfer where info asymmetries are reduced between firm and individual.

  • Hayek may or may not be the most compelling, but he's the philosopher most quoted of the three of these in Silicon Valley. His concept of openness in information sharing is the basis for much of the philosophical justification for data collection and analysis without the understanding, if not necessarily consent, of most people whose data is being collected. He's an idealist, but his concept of the price mechanism for revelation of hidden data has had some unwelcome effects.

  • Weberian idea is most compelling to me, big data on the whole has great potential but often causes benefits and harms at the same time. That's why Weber's view seems the most realistic to me. The question then turns to how we can minimize that harm while we retain the benefits.

  • I believe all of the three views can illuminate Big Data in their own way.

  • Marxist perspective on big data resonates most, especially in today's world of "tech giants". These firms' often cryptic T&C and opaque operations means that data are used in unclear ways. By nationalizing, which does not necessarily mean full authoratarian control, the state can act as a unbiased protector of individual rights. However, the intended outcome is only possible if the state operates faithfully and in the interests of the people.

  • Weber's view appeals to me the most, granted that the perspectives of Marx and Hayek were very much suited to the context of their times. With big data flourishing across the world these days, we indeed see varying use cases across countries - some for noble, and some for less noble causes - which made me more cognisant of how context-dependent the application of big data is.

  • I see no particular reason to prefer one of the other, they seem like well thought out lines of reasoning all three, although of course providing different perspectives that ultimately lead to differing normative conclusion on how to think about data driven knowledge.

  • Hayek is often misconstrued/mispotrayed by both acolytes and opponents alike--he wasn't a "NO WELFARE EVER, THE MARKET AT ALL COSTS" (he supported a welfare state) like he is sometimes potrayed as being, but instead his main point was noting how prices could convey information that no top-down planner could possibly properly account for. He argued very strongly against a centrally planned economy. I think this still holds true today--even if tech giants have a lot of data and a lot of smart people, I don't think they have the ability to use a central planning system rather than using prices as the main mechanism (this is a bit off topic/tangential, sorry) A lot of the time we can't even ourselves consciously state the factors that go into our choices.

  • I found Weber's view the most compelling; specifically because it is the only view that relates back to state building (traditionally that states were the only entities that had the ability/legitimacy to collect this much data). Additionally, Weber's view of rationalization seems to be relevant regardless of where on the Marxist/Hayekian spectrum.

  • I found Weber's view the most compelling, as it drew a good balance between both the benefits and harms of big data.

  • The portion of the Marxist argument that "users should be paid for the their data" may encourage companies to better explain what data they want/need and why to users in order to gather that data. May also push companies to consider what they need v what they want.

  • Weberian view more nuanced; both Marx and Hayek's views seem to not fully encompass all issues with big data and feel slightly reductionist applied to the field;

Mayer-Schönberger & Ramge argue that communicative coordination is the basis of most if not all human achievement, citing a number of architectural examples: the pyramids of Giza, the Mayan temple of Chichén Itzá, the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal, etc. What else do these constructions all have in common?