
How Big Tech Built the Iron Cage - mindgam3
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/building-the-digital-iron-cage
======
xorand
Zuboff theory that Google and alike live from the metadata exhaust, not from
the data itself, explains the lack of respect for the valuable data
contributed by the users.
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jit.2015.5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jit.2015.5)

~~~
Kalium
I've always found that the key realization is that on the whole things _aren
't_ "valuable data". Very few data points are actually valuable.

We call it valuable data to feel good about it and indignant about howe we're
treated. Coming face-to-face with the possibility that our individual data is
worth essentially nothing is uncomfortable.

~~~
RickS
Individually, mostly valueless. But in aggregate, the emergent patterns are
hugely valuable. Just as a litterer is fractionally culpable for worsening the
earth, our data is fractionally responsible for the wealth of these companies,
and for the same reason shouldn't be dismissed as worthless.

~~~
Kalium
The flaw in the analogy being that litter builds up additively. User data is
more like a square law effect.

You're completely right, of course. One user's data isn't worthless and should
never be dismissed. Yet in financial and practical terms its value far closer
to zero than to any useful unit of account.

------
holoduke
The most shocking of this all is that these big tech companies are
communicating in a way you see in dictorial countries. There is hardly any
dialog possible. Disputes are ignored. the right to a fair dialog and the
principle of an adversarial process is completely ignored by these giants. And
that is quite a bad thing. We see it now happening quite often with smaller
but also bigger companies. Sooner or later even individuals will get to face
the strong negative influence these companies can give. For many centuries we
killed each other to fight for proper humane rights. Individuals but also
companies. And now some kind of new virtual world is created where local laws
are completely ignored. Not good!!!

~~~
spaced-out
All corporations in the US act like mini-dictatorships/oligarchies.

~~~
jdsully
Comcast was always terrible, but at least I could call up their support desk
and make someone answer for their bad service. Sometimes they even fix the
problem!

You can't call anyone at these new companies.

~~~
spaced-out
Not true, I've dealt with Amazon support and I thought it was better than
dealing with my bank or cable company.

~~~
Scoundreller
As a product buyer? AWS customer? Or vendor?

As an S3 customer for web hosting, I couldn’t understand why I was paying 10
cents a month for EC2 charges since I don’t use it. They just refunded me an
entire month, but I really wanted to know what was happening!

~~~
hakfoo
I suspect that on Amazon's scale, it's probably cheaper for them to toss
refunds at customers than to actually fix problems.

Having a first-tier CSR click a dashboard button costs them the 10 cents per
month plus 25 cents of labour to pay the guy to read the complaint, find the
button, and press it.

Opening a ticket for a well-paid engineer to actually dissect the billing
system and figure out where the 10 cent charge comes from, develop a fix, push
it through validation and deploy it, probably costs $300.

~~~
Scoundreller
Oh, I’m sure. It worked out great for me, but it probably affected all S3
public web hosting users.

Though i’d Estimate a fix costs at least 10x $300, if not 100-1000x.

------
ilaksh
The core issue with governance that arises regardless of paradigm, in my
opinion, is over-centralization.

Now it seems that we have technology behemoths superceding government and
centralizing control of our economies.

I like to call them "technopolies". They are successful largely because they
are so all-encompassing over particular areas. The problem is that they are
private profit driven entities and so the playing field, though large, is not
fair, and core functions lack competition.

Eventually all-encompassing decentralized public technology platforms should
be able to supercede the technopolies. This way we can have systems that
operate holistically in a way with majority networks but without the private
centralization of control.

That is not to say that it is going to be easy. But it's the only viable
paradigm that could replace the Iron Cage.

~~~
bill_rr
So do you think it's more about breaking down the (centralized) big dogs or
supporting the (decentralized) smaller startups. This Iron Cage is full-on
dystopia. I really can't believe we're letting it happen!

~~~
ilaksh
I think we need to promote startups and companies in general that are built on
public decentralized protocols. Breaking up monopolies without having the
public platforms available could just lead to other technopolies popping up to
replace the old ones.

------
chrisbrandow
I wish that these critiques grappled with the ways that so many of the
services that we now resent were truly embraced by many because they seemed
magical when they appeared.

------
bookofjoe
I wonder if Shoshana Zuboff will be able to resist the 7-to-8-figure offers
she's already received and will continue to receive from Facebook et al.

------
EGreg
We need better software alternatives, not regulation. That’s how we beat IE,
and that’s how we beat AOL, Britannica and so on and so forth.

The problem is a lot deeper: [https://qbix.com/blog](https://qbix.com/blog)

~~~
kevingadd
Part of what undid IE was literally antitrust regulation...

~~~
EGreg
What about AOL?

------
malvosenior
Completely absent from this narrative is a discussion about the immense value
people get out of these technologies and what people like the author propose
as a replacement.

The internet and "tech giants" have given us the ability to put our thoughts
out to a global audience, stay in touch with friends and family around the
globe (for free). Take and store a near infinite number of photographs. Order
a car to your front door and have the destination chosen before hand without
having to negotiate with your driver...

Tech is awesome, life is good. Yes the East Coast old media companies hate
that they've lost their gatekeeping power but plenty of us would see that as
yet another benefit of tech empowerment.

The cost? You give up some privacy. Only no one cares about that. Most people
don't have anything to hide from advertisers. Most of this personalization
tech doesn't even work. I've literally never seen an ad so enticing that I've
clicked on it.

Normal people love their technology and the "issues" outlined in this piece
and the book it's discussing are those of the old money elite and their loss
of power, not those of the masses who are more empowered by tech than ever
before.

~~~
jimmy1
> Only no one cares about that.

I really wish people would stop saying this. It is a completely idiotic
statement. There are hundreds of people throughout history that quite
literally gave their lives for privacy, as recent as one generation ago.
Complacency and the silent majority does not equate to "no one cares about
that" otherwise, you wouldn't have so many privacy centers and advocacy groups
throughout the country.

> Most people don't have anything to hide from advertisers.

"'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings Of Privacy"
[https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...](https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=faculty_publications)
It's a good read, and I hope it convinces you otherwise that privacy is as
important as ever, even in lieu of fallacious "nothing to hide" arguments.

From the paper, the easiest way to debunk the "nothing to hide" argument is to
ask easy questions.

"I've got nothing to hide." "OK, so why do you have curtains or blinds in your
home?" "OK you have nothing to hide, so can I see your past credit card
statements?"

If we all have nothing to hide, why don't those interested in our private
lives show us theirs? It's the ole "Show me yours and I’ll show you mine"
adage.

~~~
cblades
I think it's very fair to say that your average user absolutely does not care
about privacy past catastrophic and specific leaks or revelations based on
their own private data.

Wether that's wise or not is definitely up for debate. I think we'd be much
better off instilling a higher value for privacy than we'd be trying to
legislate and regulate the problem away. Companies will find ways to skirt
legal measures, but an evaporating user base cannot be ignored.

~~~
playdohscave
The reason they care about "catastrophic and specific leaks or revelations
based on their own private data" is because that is the only time the average
user notices how much information they cede to these platforms.

If the general public truly understood how much information they give up and
how valuable that information is, people would begin to take these things more
seriously.

Users are conditioned to allow access to GPS and Camera without thinking for
the sake of using specific features of an app. Combine that with maliciously
impenetrable ToS and its hardly surprising that people give away their
information so freely.

~~~
treis
>The reason they care about "catastrophic and specific leaks or revelations
based on their own private data" is because that is the only time the average
user notices how much information they cede to these platforms.

Because the instances of tangible harm coming to someone from data leaked by
Facebook et. al. are few and far between.

>If the general public truly understood how much information they give up and
how valuable that information is, people would begin to take these things more
seriously.

I think it's intellectually lazy to think that people disagree with you
because they don't have all the facts. Most people are aware with the amount
of data collected on them. They are somewhat bothered by it, but not bothered
enough to make a lot of changes.

~~~
playdohscave
>Because the instances of tangible harm coming to someone from data leaked by
Facebook et. al. are few and far between.

Not sure what makes you think this considering the fact that lately there has
been at least one data leak outrage story every week from Facebook alone.

>I think it's intellectually lazy to think that people disagree with you
because they don't have all the facts. Most people are aware with the amount
of data collected on them. They are somewhat bothered by it, but not bothered
enough to make a lot of changes.

I appreciate you calling out my platitude but it is funny that you decided to
answer with one equally lazy. How do you know? In my experience most younger
people are aware, but for people of my parents generation this stuff is a
complete mystery.

