Millennial finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference

[notimp]

Here is a millennial at a german hacker conference, thinking that social control is cool, because they are familiar with self censorship on facebook, and entirely amazed by how "interesting" and "great sounding" some concepts are if you give them PR names.

Watch them trying to spread this enthusiasm to an audience they believe are intellectual dumbells (like people that cant read f.e. the economist themselves) - being very concerned, that they are perceived as very inclusive and intelligent upfront. By doing some namedropy stuff.

https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system

I'm all for looking at things from different perspectives, what kills me is the genuine enthusiasm for totalitarian concepts, while acting like a misfit at a hacker conference.

If thats the intellectual elite we are working with...

Also I guess watch if you want some deeper knowledge about certain programs, or you find listening to someone worth your while, that can explain to you three times over what social shaming is.

Moneyquote "The system got abolished, when citizens and even state media started to talk about how this is an Orwellian system - because its very centralized, and..." -

- because its very centralized and - ? It gave people a social score. Based on a made up catalog of criteria. That started everyone at 1000 points, but then detracted points if you were behaving like you were living in a bad area. You can drop your "universal objectivity playacting" right then and there lady... But the new systems? So much better now.

Please never become that person. (They studied economics, but they are much more into the social, like - right now... Hence the black sweater.)

 

[Whole lotta love]

Why did you emphasize her identity as a millennial as opposed to her many other identities (economist, white person, German, etc.)
Like it's just one person, weird to lump them into a group as if that's relevant at all. And that's not even getting into the legitimacy of "millennial" as a useful category.

 

[notimp]

Because to me its representative of a large group of younger members of society belonging to this age group, falling into the very same same trappings - of acting out "i care so much about the social"- then following that up with public stage actions like hyping totalitarian concepts - that prove the entire opposite.

Also its really her main characteristic, standing on that stage. She is young. She is enthusiastic.

Thats more important to me to draw the image, than that she is a women, or a german citizen.

Also she learned python to do like big data stuff, but was especially amazed - when just changing one thing would have - like, massive impacts... Couldnt quite fit that into the title as well... :/

 

[notimp]

The thing that she finds objectionable about the the social scoring of people right now (24min30sec mark), is that the chinese government (!) doesnt make it transparent (!), what data is exactly shared (!), when they are sharing the social scores around between ministries and the private sector (!). Shes very adament about this. Also very professional when suming this up with - "we dont know at this point".

Please slap me out of it, I have to be dreaming this.

This is what happens if you are more fascinated with yourself chasing a "socially responsible" public image, than with the stuff you are actually saying, thinking or doing.

Forget, that this is a bright kid, wanting to wear a black sweater - someone has to tell her, what public image she is projecting right then and there...

Also and I quote: "About 80% of people are between 950 and 1050 points right now - those are basically the [airquotes] normal people, and..."

I'm dying. This is it. I cant. I... must continue watching.

 

[Whole lotta love]

I think you might be engaging in confirmation bias as I'm sure you encounter many millenials who do not demonstrate this tendency that you associate with the group. I imagine you also come across many people from older generations who do this same thing.

If you want to link to millennials I think it would be wise to justify that in your post. Like it would be weird for me to write that post and title it:

"Woman finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference"

Then the burden of proof is on you to link these two things, and thus far you've simply said you feel like there is a connection.

Because to me its representative of a large group of younger members of society belonging to this age group, falling into the very same same trappings - of acting out "i care so much about the social"- then following that up with public stage actions like hyping totalitarian concepts - that proof the entire opposite.

Also its really her main characteristic, standing on that stage. She is young. She is enthusiastic.

Not to me. I'm mostly interested in her background and what she has to say. I imagine this is true for many viewers.

Now we're sort of stuck in the conversation, do we talk about the content of her talk, or do we discuss the legitimacy of the correlation you have drawn between totalitarianism and people born between 1983 and 1995.

I'll leave us with a good quote from a man I don't really like:

 

[notimp]

She ends with her findings within the statistical modeling that she has done while on a scholarship in china - so basically, best practices for the chinese government, so that their modeling gets accepted by a public and is accepted long term, then stating, that she also used some proprietary data within here models, that she hasn't greenlit for open publishing so far, but as soon as she gets the go ahead, everyone can take a look at the raw data as well.

But open data be very important. Except for when you need the access..

Lovely story about an ambitious young mind venturing into the inner workings of two or three chinese social scoring models - but the actual categorical positioning here is frightening as hell, and pretty much tonedeath for the entire first third of the talk.

But boy the fascination for this stuff is there and living, in a younger generation.

 

[Clydefrosch]

And you don't believe for a moment that maybe... they're literal shills doing this for money? like advertising?
or just positioning herself as one of the go to employees, should such a concept ever be explored in germany?


also, the world is already partially working based on such concepts, just a bit more random and a bit more arbitrary here or there.
social control already is very much and has always been very much a cornerstone of how societies work. this isn't that much more different. it literally just shows the issues of these systems more clearly, since everything is clearly defined, the injustice of how where you're born and what you're being outfitted with as you grow and how that limits what you're able and allowed to do becomes much clearer.

 

[notimp]

and what she has to say

Here is her background. Student exchange scholarship at a prestigious chinese university for economics. Wanted to do "something with social" - so she looked into the chinese social score systems the best she could.

Got access to some sample data, she cant share, did statistical modeling based on five different actions her simulated actors could perform, and some behavioral modeling data from some friends of hers (surveys, if you'd know that it costs you points, would you...).

Here is what she has to say: These are the best ways to assure that the system works, and is accepted by people. (Also - here, look at a commercial version from Alibaba, that already is.)

Sadly, no more additional output. Some geeks in the audience asked about operational details, that shouldnt prove very important. But to her credit she has in depth knowledge about implementation likelyhoods and timeframes..

.. and a very disturbing fascination with "making this work better".

Thank you for your research.

Best audience question: Do we know the potential dynamics of regaining score ("fluidity") - which she answered with a non answer answer (in the important models case it probably will be determined on a "per person basis" - which it won't - when its rolled out at large).

edit: There was one insight worth listening to this though. From her perspective, this will get implemented by stating that it would introduce more "financial trust" - (so basically people can get access to more loans) but that there is only a small correlation between "social behavior" and "likelyhood of loan payback", so that the social score model actually would prove to be a bad indicator and not at all needed for this, for the financial sector long term.

But that the chinese government had already gone public with statements, of "we want it so that people can get more loans" - so it will be rolled out simply so they dont lose face.

She probably didn't get the politics quite right on this one, but her assessment here was interesting nevertheless.

 

[notimp]

also, the world is already partially working based on such concepts, just a bit more random and a bit more arbitrary here or there.

Yes, basically correct - and my assessment as well.

What I am uneasy with - is that new notion of "now that we get all this pretty precise modeling at basically no cost" (more datapoints for free, that people dont necessarily know that they are giving) - someone attend to society, so we can make sure, that people feel more fulfilled, when their actionable impact actually accounts for less and less.

Also - false negatives. People not understanding, what is happening here. Huge issues in my book. So all that fascination about the better modeling capability of something that might, or might not represent the actual world (its more like a best guess version of it), take that - and direct it right to where it matters, and those are the actual outcomes and the social shifts that it will cause.

(Long term outcomes of improving the reproducibility of a certain societal model not even looked at, ...)

Heck, I want to see people game the heck out of those system - just so that people get an understanding, that they are no more just - or objective, than the people creating the algorithms. They might be more precise towards what they are measuring. But that is not objective reality.

Also - this is an upcoming "girlwonder" data scientist talking here, and she has a deficit in social awareness thats so huge that you can drive an entire train through it. Not a great sign. Not a great image to leave with either.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

But how do you know he's fascinated? Did God tell you or you just assumed?

I got my PhD from PragerU.

 

[notimp]

I don't believe in god, I'm afraid and I deducted that myself. At the point in the speech, where she tried to frame "The" social score, as something thats gotten largely misrepresented in the west, because there is more than one, and chinese people actually see it as more of a chance, because general societal trust is so low, and that people would use it more to gage who to make friends with, only to end on "the system most western media outlets reported on - probably still is the one thats getting picked, because it got a lot of prices", and thats the way the government usually picks them after running pilot programs and - somehow representing this as her own critical deduction in the last third of the talk.

It might have also been the fact that she tried to whitewash it, by focusing quite a bit on the aspect, that in china the words for "financial credit" and "social credit" actually are the same (she knew the word, which made her very excited to tell everyone), and so when the government ventured out to create a credit rating system for banks, this was really the logical consequence, also because they had similar programs in the past, or how she gleened over the fact, that there is a whole subgroup of people who where not registered as chinese citizens during the "one child only policy" period who now are exempt from traveling large distances, or even buying a phone.

It might also have been the notion, that in her research she actually helped to point out potential points of failure for the chinese government to address before rolling it out.

Or how she geeked out over the score range the 80th percentile of people holds. Math is fun, kids.

But if you give her all benefit of the doubt. Yes, maybe shes just "interested and a little confused". If thats a more proper fit for the title in your eyes - take it. Run with it.

But the takeaway still is, that she thinks, that this is a cool topic to have done her thesis in - and that she shows genuine enthusiasm, when talking about it. Whithout reflecting one bit, on whats coming out of her mouth.

 

[notimp]

Also I'm not sorry at all for having triggered people in here again, having used the word millennial to represent a group of young people - because if thats all you can get riled up over in this topic, you've done exactly what I've intended.

You've made my point.

Fake outrage over surface level stuff like using a word you dont like - while having made that your excuse for not looking at the problem thats raised here at all. Be proud.

Now you are all conflicted, if you should shut me down for making you look bad, or if the topic actually is important enough - that you shouldnt make this about you this time around. Young people fascinated by totalitarian concepts at hacker conference. There. Better now?

But why do you have to bring up her age at all in this topic? And not for example her gender, or her qualification? Because thats the whole framing device. I didn't call her a bad person for championing large aspects of totalitarian policy making, I called her young and naive.

 

[Lucifer666]

I agree this is bad, but I also agree with those criticising your emphasis on the word 'millennial'.

Also I'm not sorry at all for having triggered people in here again, having used the word millennial to represent a group of young people - because if thats all you can get riled up over in this topic, you've done exactly what I've intended.

You've made my point.

Fake outrage over surface level stuff like using a word you dont like - while having made that your excuse for not looking at the problem thats raised here at all. Be proud.

Now you are all conflicted, if you should shut me down for making you look bad, or if the topic actually is important enough - that you shouldnt make this about you this time around. Young people fascinated by totalitarian concepts at hacker conference. There. Better now?

But why do you have to bring up her age at all in this topic? And not for example her gender, or her qualification? Because thats the whole framing device. I didn't call her a bad person for championing large aspects of totalitarian policy making, I called her young and naive.

jfc chill and get off your high horse. you're acting like you can go "GOTCHA!!" when all you've done is make everybody else in the thread wince and not want to bother engaging anymore

--

For the record I agree with you that this is bad (coming from a hardcore socialist "millennial" myself), but I also agree with those criticising your use of the word millennial. It's lazy, pejorative, and implies a false correlation between youth and destructively radical political stances. She has her own reasons for thinking the way she does whether we agree with it or not, and it's wrong to invalidate them just because you lack respect for younger age groups. Makes you sound like an old fart whining about "kids these days", which isn't an exclusively millennial thing, and happens every generation. Once you accept that our society's youth need to have a space to observe, take part in discussions, and analyse such matters (which ironically, is what gets them out of the position of being "young/naïve/inexperienced" you complain about), only then will people take your input seriously.

As I have said at the start of the previous paragraph, I do actually agree with you. But you paint it to be a systematic issue with younger folks when it really, really isn't.

 

[notimp]

I can live with that. Although - I still find it oddly funny - that people are trying to censor this specific use of a word in a thread about totalitarian tendencies. But thats just me.

(Didnt focus in on it in any other way - than to write up the concept, that - ideally, even young people, growing up on facebook, being familiar with self censorship, and social media optimized personas, would and should not be that laissez faire with certain concepts. If I hadnt picked that angle, I would have had to use other words for describing a display of naivity mixed with enthusiasm. Those probably would have been harsher.)

 

[kuwanger]

What I am uneasy with - is that new notion of "now that we get all this pretty precise modeling at basically no cost" (more datapoints for free, that people dont necessarily know that they are giving) - someone attend to society, so we can make sure, that people feel more fulfilled, when their actionable impact actually accounts for less and less.

So, um, yea. China does it to your face. The US has "Credit Scores" that are equally arbitrary and opaque. It has hidden "Do Not Fly" lists. It's a major innovator in the facial recognition tech that China is adopting. It has large companies (Google and Facebook) which are doing all the "pretty precise modeling at basically no cost" bullshit pushing their AI stuff, and Facebook has repeatedly demonstrated it'll sell that information to basically anyone.

Yea, I agree it's all very frightening that she's so gun-ho about it, but the US has been gun-ho about it since at least 2000. I guess it's "better" that the US and Europe aren't explicitly taking the steps that China is doing and seem to be focusing more on manipulating people to buy things? Old ideas are new again, and the young are the avant garde of carrying out most of the worst atrocities because they're the ones who are most keenly aware of how fucked up the current way is, even if they're too gullible to accept just about anything that sounds good on paper.

But the other part is everyone else. China couldn't get away with what they're doing if most the populace wasn't complacent to whatever government does. That 90% are "normal" range is by design to keep them complacent and ready to accept the irregulars as deserving of punishment. That's true in China, the US, or Nazi Germany. It's why I'm disturbed by all of it and wish to never be complacent that it couldn't happen here, where ever here is.

 

[notimp]

I agree with everything you've said. What I see in the west is trying to get as many aspects of the (+/-) all encompassing chinese model to work in society, by people voluntary choosing to use it.

And it doesnt take very many steps. Step 1: Build a Google/Amazon virtual assistant that makes peoples lives easier. Step 2: The end.

This all is a function of what is perceived to be 'the' (now I'm using airquotes) next economy. So - people all of a sudden produce a heck more of data thats easy to aggregate, and that they dont want any money for, and that they hardly know they produce - what can we do with it. And the answer is obviously "make better models" - or from the perspective of people - "something that will make my life more easy".

What pretty much everyone that looked at the trends around big data in principal is concerned about is that the models start to define the individual, without really that much input needed, or essentially wanted. Which hits on two issues. The first one is the end of the concept of free will. The second one is people not understanding the things that are shaping their lives.

In china apparently you have technooptimism ("the apps wills solve this"), in western societies you cant have this as a solution, because historically we championed the individual, and individual self fulfillment. Basically I dont want this tradition to be broken.. For us, we create the models of our selves.

And I basically dont trust a proxy to do it for me.

Thats the unnecessary philosophical explaination, for this really being the difference between a democratic society, and totalitarian ones.

I've seen too many bad models of the ad industry trying to tell people - whats good for them, for me to believe, that they should make any of their life decisions. Also I HATE the notion of people being defined by association to others.

When we do it currently - its more in a less tangible sense, its more an approximation of the moment, or a situation. It basically changes with the social situation (work, at a bar, ..) If we make that definite (social score of 1050), something breaks in our societies.

Don't forget, in China people are encouraged to compare social scores before deciding on who to do business with, who to mingle, who to marry, ... Its basically also why I shout everyone into the ground that tries to tell me "try having more facebook followers - it will raise your societal worth". The heck it will.

 

[SG854]

You’re really obsessed with Millenials.
You should marry one.

 

[EmanueleBGN]

Well, was Plato a "millennial"?
Totalitarism always had fascinated the people: the crowd because is easiest to obey than to create your own way of life; the oligarchs because they can preserve their power, their control above the crowd.
Also, your Country (whichever it is) is an oligarchy - a Plutonomy. Even worst if you have a Monarchy

 

[notimp]

You’re really obsessed with Millenials.
You should marry one.

Nah - people are obsessed with the word. You write entire threads about really important different stuff, and all they want to do is talk about the first word that triggered an emotional response in them.

It's a mindhack. It draws attention. Get over it.
//

Well, was Plato a "millennial"?
Totalitarism always had fascinated the people: the crowd because is easiest to obey than to create your own way of life; the oligarchs because they can preserve their power, their control above the crowd.
Also, your Country (whichever it is) is an oligarchy - a Plutonomy. Even worst if you have a Monarchy

Plutocracy yes. Thats why I wrote - that what triggers me here, is that girl. Faking being so very socially concerned, namedropping "I'm so Intelligent"; by dropping about three tropes in the first five minutes of her talk, wearing a black sweater. Addressing a constituency of "hackers", falls for it as well - hookline and sinker.

I hold her studied self to a higher standard. I hold her chosen peer group to a higher standard. And in this instance - they both failed. This is where the iritation comes from. This is where I start to complain vigorously.

The CCC has an ethics codex, that is supposed to prevent people being fascinated by the capabilities of tech, modeling societies in a totalitarian image - because thats really the closest fit in most cases.

 

[SG854]

Nah - people are obsessed with the word. You write entire threads about really important different stuff,

Nah, you’re for sure obsessed with Millenials. It goes beyond the word.

You can’t stop talking about them.
You’re in love with them. Just admit it.

This is you right here
Why I’m most critical of the things I love.