As the Internet is increasingly expanding and evolving, the question of what the Web looks like and who has control over it comes into play. For a space originally molded after the horizontal, free-thinking example of California culture, the integrity of the Web exists on the foundation that it is innately a borderless, free network.It is interesting to see that the Internet’s utility has changed over the years. Where it was once exploratory, it now seems to a ground for external companies to capitalize on our data unknowingly. That is why I really liked the idea in the article “The Internet’s Original Sin” especially when it pinpoints where the issues could have arisen from:
I have come to believe that advertising is the original sin of the web. The fallen state of our Internet is a direct, if unintentional, consequence of choosing advertising as the default model to support online content and services.
Even though this was unintentional, the consequences of choosing advertising as the main platform to maintain online content changes the internet from its original fundamental purpose and culture. I think it is important to investigate why our data is the main capital that is extracted on the internet today from many services. In the article “How Companies Learn Your Secrets” I saw that when we think something is ‘free’ on the internet, it is really not true. Nothing is free in life; instead, companies are taking your data instead of your money.
“Free is a good price,” Pew said in its report. People like no-cost services, and are willing to forfeit some privacy in exchange for them. An individual’s data has become its own kind of currency. One survey respondent, referring to his use of Gmail, said: “To be honest, I don’t really care … I use Gmail for free, but I know that Google will capture some information in return. I’m fine with that.”
As it said in a few of the articles, your data is worth a lot of money. It could be worth up to $1,200 dollars. That is something that I find difficult to wrap my mind around, but I do not doubt that it is true. I know that my data is being monitored or shared when I see ads or sponsored posts that seem interrelated to my personal self. These ads are the “creepy” ads that were mentioned in the articles. I liked the analysis of these “creepy” ads and how it relates and takes advantage of our disposition in Western culture in the article “Data ” and the Uncanny Valley of Personalization”:
Personalization appeals to a Western, egocentric belief in individualism. Yet it is based on the generalizing statistical distributions and normalized curves methods used to classify and categorize large populations. Personalization purports to be uniquely meaningful, yet it alienates us in its mass application.
I think the ads are interesting and how they are targeted as stated above, but the bigger picture is an issue of who has our data, what they are doing with it, and how will this affect our privacy. It is said well in “The Convenience-Surveillance Tradeoff”:
“The data is there, and it’s being used, and there isn’t a damn thing most of us can do about it, other than strongly resent it,” one respondent told Pew. “The data isn’t really the problem. It’s who gets to see and use that data that creates problems. It’s too late to put that genie back in the bottle.”
The question that remains is to decide how precious our privacy is, and how much we would be willing to fight for it. I believe most of it is already gone so implementing policy is probably an uphill battle, but probably worth implementing the best change we can make. Personally I use Adblock myself, and since I have started using it have blocked 89,160 ads. I am not sure the ethical standpoint on using this tool; however, I believe I should not be forced to look at ads.
CSE40175 Blog 