I've been viscerally opposed to regulating technology except the the most rare of circumstances.
That was before our new masters of the universe turned us into the subjects of black-box science experiments at accelerating speeds -- and fired the people who think about the ethics of it all.
This is unacceptable, and if the public doesn't wake up, a few mega-wealthy and powerful people could ruin everything for everyone but (temporarily) themselves.
@KeithAmmann @dangillmor well, you can.
Laws and regulations aready exist.
It's just that we systemically allow shit.
@dangillmor Glad you are changing you mind Dan.
Drafting and implementing regulation is risky but after the failure of “informed consumers” and “insurance companies will force good behavior” we are left with regulation or the forever downward spiral.
@dangillmor This is the inevitable result of weak or nonexistent regulation.
I understand being concerned about over-regulation and bad regulations, but laissez-faire is nearly always exponentially worse.
Just one recent example of weak regulation:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/17/gift-sight-stolen-as-medical-implant-company-implodes/
@dangillmor I'm curious if you see a way to even attempt to put this genie back in its bottle.
I worry that, no matter what regulation we may attempt to use, bad actors have this technology now and will use it, ever more frequently and invisibly, to dictate the course of discourse.
More productive inquiries may be how to mitigate the ongoing presence of GPT-fueled disinformation, perhaps by introducing a network of trusted sources?
@dangillmor Or you can just choose to opt-out of those "black-box science experiments".
If nobody used them, they'd vanish in a heartbeat.
But that requires self-control, which so few people seem to possess.
@LouisIngenthron @dangillmor I applaud and agree with your sentiment. unfortunately, it takes a concerted effort to opt out of those "black-box science experiments", which is more than most busy people have time for...
/1
However, any time you reply to an email with someone who has a GMail address (or any other email providers that are part of the "surveillance capitalism" system), you have opted-in.
Though, it's often more subtle. As @briankrebs points out in https://infosec.exchange/@briankrebs/109880177018417627 , if anybody who has you in their contact list installs an app supporting that business model you have been opted-in whether you like it or not.
/eof
I'm pretty sure Mastodon is the first social network I've been on that didn't immediately ask me to betray all of the people in my address book.
@mcrocker @dangillmor @briankrebs They haven't "opted you in" to anything. They've shared data you shared with them with a company, as is their right. If you don't want other people to share your data, then either don't give it to them or ask them not to share it.
That said, personal data privacy is one of the few areas where the government could stand to be a bit more involved.
@mcrocker @LouisIngenthron @dangillmor I hear people here go on all the time about how Gmail is bad because their bots scan your email to serve you ads, hence Google is part of the borg, etc. They respond to legal process just the same as every other email provider.
My email is with Gmail because they offer me more protection options for keeping my account from getting hacked than any other service out there. That's basically it.
@mcrocker @dangillmor Which tells you that the "science experiments" offer more value to those people than they take.
For example: I don't sign up for grocery store rewards programs because they're gross violations of privacy, but most people do. They just see a different value proposition than I do.
B.C.
Dan Gillmor
Kevin Karhan 
AccordionBruce
Keith Ammann
Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸
Jeff Moss
Gretchen Anderson
Sentient Mortal
dr 🛠️🛰️📡🎧
Ricardo Harvin
ZoeInBinary
Voron
creckling
Louis Ingenthron
Mark Crocker
BrianKrebs
Friesenkiwi
aismallard (relocated!)