Big data....

[johnny9fingers]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/09/everybody-lies-how-google-reveals-darkest-secrets-seth-stephens-davidowitz

This is an important article. For the first time we are able to correlate all sorts of data points; and now some things are becoming apparent:
approx 5% of The US's population is gay, the areas with the highest number of racist searches on google were the areas which voted overwhelmingly for Trump, and no-one apart from me is actually having very much sex.

I now know why African Americans are so fucking angry, and why Gay folk are scared, why marriages are full of frustrated people, and the fact that the racist, sexist homophobes dissemble every time they're on the Internet excepting when they're searching for new racist, sexist, or homophobic jokes. Weird that I can still spot them, eh?

How does the panel think that an examination of their individual internet history would reflect on them? In my case obvs it's literature, music, politics, and sex; with Wikipedia plugged into a vein at all times. 

And now I also know why folk are against big data even if anonymously gathered and with identities protected. It seems it's not just institutional and cultural racism/sexism/homophobia, it's actual, individually held, and hidden.

Personally, I never use the "N" word excepting academically and in quotation marks; and even then I prefer not to use it, accepting Edward VII's injunction against it; but I can imagine it being difficult to write this article without it.

Comments

[kiaa]

Nothing to hide here: lots of science news and lots of porn.

[asthfghl]

Pretty much.

[johnny9fingers]

Hours of very boring stuff, and the odd three minutes of self-abuse. We built an Empire on it.

[johnny9fingers]

I have to admit I have visited "Stormfront" on a few occasions. Just to check I wasn't misinterpreting some people, obvs.

Anyway, the "my porn is better than your porn" debate has yet to get started.

[oportet]

If you have a question about another culture, or gays, or the opposite sex - maybe an anonymous google search is the best way to go about things. Folks aren't exactly tolerant of intolerance - and with damn near everything being interpreted as intolerant and offensive these days, why take the chance? If you have a good job, and/or are well respected around the world, or even just in a small town - mentioning any kind of group - with no bad intentions, absent of anything anyone could rationally construe as hateful - could still come back to hurt you.


My personal internet history? Completely blank - seems I've never been to a website in my life.

[johnny9fingers]

Maybe. By that measure, this will be the only truly representative statistical analysis which will ever become available to people. All other ones will be skewed as folk adapt to the knowledge that metadata yields statistically valid results when filtered correctly.

[oportet]

True - but we can't be absolutely sure of the intentions behind every search. Questioning/researching a groups actions/motives might not necessarily mean you either hate the group or secretly want to join it.

Sure, if someone searches 'I HATE JEWS' - it may be safe to label them anti-Semitic.

But, if someone googles 'Why do black people get more haircuts than whites?' - it may be a little soon to write them off as racist...

[johnny9fingers]

I wouldn't disagree at all, which is why I mentioned that I have visited Stormfront. There will be a statistically significant number of false positives. But whether it is of minimal significance or not will always be a question. Filters are designed to winnow out some of the more obvious ones. I mean if we can talk about it, it likely will have been considered and an estimate given of hopefully the right order of magnitude. But then again, look how derivatives were mispriced. GIGO, no matter how clever the algorithms.

Two aphorisms to live by in the digital age.

[policraticus]

How does the panel think that an examination of their individual internet history would reflect on them?

The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching. -John Wooden

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. - Francois de La Rochefoucauld

In other words, your browser history is probably who you really are, but that is nothing to be proud of.

Re: Two aphorisms to live by in the digital age.

[johnny9fingers]

I was always of the opinion that one could perceive a person's character through their personal library (not one they have inherited).

Apperception of the person through their browser history is liable to be more accurate.

O tempora, o mores!

Re: Two aphorisms to live by in the digital age.

[policraticus]

I don't know. On reflexion, what says more about a person's character; the random scanning of some disreputable website, or the dog-eared copy of Tristram Shandy that they have treasured for 20 years or the fact that they are considered a good friend? Is it the deep dive they've taken into German pornography that reveals who they really are, or is it their devotion to Classical Greek poetry, or is it their generosity to the poor?

Ultimately, who is the real you? The person in the dark? Or, is it the person in the library? Or, is it the face you show the world?