|
|
|
|
|
|
by ds9
4829 days ago
|
|
|
They "have to" share the data because it's profitable to do so, and profit is the sole imperative of corporations. "At some point, the creepy corporate use of FB data will scare people from using FB" That was the point of the article: "Most people already know not to publicize individual things that reflect badly on them; once they realize that the totality of what they post can have serious repercussions, too, they’ll clam up. " People here already understand the implications, but this assumes that millions of users will "get it" too. Maybe they will, eventually, but not as readily as the author assumes. The data-mining will progress even further than it has before the masses change their behavior. |
|
|
There is already analysis arguing (whether or not correctly) that social graphs themselves convey useful, actionable information. For example, the argument that friends of "deadbeats" are likely to be less reliable, themselves. So, if you "friend" too many people having low credit scores, this may effect you when e.g. a lender uses your Facebook graph in evaluating your suitability for a loan.
Similar concerns with regard to evaluation of insurance risk and insurability.
Knowledge asymmetry is the point of arbitrage upon which many people earn a living (and some, a quite extravagant living). Absent sufficient inhibitions (whether self-serving, e.g. Facebook's potential self-destruction; or external, e.g. regulation), people will use "big data" to this effect.