Millennial finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference

[notimp]

I am a millennial for starters. But then, this is really not the thread to obsess about millennials.

 

[Whole lotta love]

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.

You're the one posting over and over again dude. I just want to discuss this very interesting video you shared without having to agree with your premise that you refuse to justify.

You are employing a slight modification of a very common logical fallacy (loaded statement) and I think the users here deserve a higher level of discourse than that.

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.

Who has tried to censor you and how?

If you say to your math teacher: "2+2=5"
and he says: "actually, 2+2=4 and here's why..."
do you consider that censorship?

 

[notimp]

The girl is a millennial.

I'm not loading this term with all the emotional baggage that makes you respond to it.

I have no problem to switch to "this is a girl, thats more interested to fake social awareness, and to prove intelligence - by namedropping institutions she got grants from, more interested in showcasing that she set up a chinese simultaneous translation of her lackluster talk, than to think through the concepts she was working on and helped improving. While even being proud of doing so.

I'm saddened, that people with real social awareness didn't reach her earlier in her development, so that we could have had an impact on here obviously very promising career in economics.

There thats a loaded statement I created. Its still not wrong though.

Also yes, I use rhetorics in my arguments.

(I've read Schopenhauer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right ) I challenge you to find 37 other comics, to underline the remaining principals I could but might not use, or might not have used. )

 

[The Catboy]

I am a millennial for starters. But then, this is really not the thread to obsess about millennials.

Then why an emphasize on Millennials? If it's not about Millennials, then why make the title and your posts emphasizing Millennials? You can't draw attention to something and then just say, "Well it's not about that."

The girl is a millennial.

Ok, and? There's no reason to emphasize if it has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

 

[Catsinabucket]

Another Millennials related thread? Wuh oh

 

[notimp]

If you want to make this a discussion about the term Millennials though - let me start with this video game related video:





"I do feel like I remember doing a lot of.." Would be a wonderful sentence for a millennial to start an actual production segment on this video after the intro for example.

Oh wow, that happened at less than tree minutes into the video.

 

[Essometer]

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.)

I think you missed the point of the talk. First of all, this has nothing to do with millanials (by the way, that was a great way to derail this thread). She is a student and was
interestet in what was really behind the Social Ranking in China. The media here really glosses about the detail in how it is working, the prototyps, how it affect the people and so on.
It is also not showing how the people in China react to the introduction and what they think about it. In here talk, she also presented her model agent and how it would fair in the current
Social System. At the end of her talk, she mentioned quite a view disatvantages of the system and some of them aredisastrous for the society.

This talk wasn't advertising the Social System, but rather to show how it works in detail. She is enthusiastic about the topic because it was/is an interessting field to study, not
because the System is good for society.

 

[Whole lotta love]

The girl is a millennial.

I'm not loading this term with all the emotional baggage that makes you respond to it.

I have no problem to switch to "this is a girl, thats more interested to fake social awareness, and to prove intelligence - by namedropping institutions she got grants from, more interested in showcasing that she set up a chinese simultaneous translation of her lackluster talk, than to think through the concepts she was working on and helped improving. While even being proud of doing so.

I'm saddened, that people with real social awareness didn't reach her earlier in her development, so that we could have had an impact on here obviously very promising career in economics.

There thats a loaded statement I created. Its still not wrong though.

Also yes, I use rhetorics in my arguments.

(I've read Schopenhauer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right ) I challenge you to find 37 other comics, to underline the remaining principals I could but might not use, or might not have used. )

Could you please answer my question about censorship? Who has attempted to censor you and how?

 

[notimp]

This thread is getting out of hand. People are just making stuff up, and running with it.

Short answers to stop this.

I dont feel being censored here, nor have I ever indicated so.

I don't think that I have misconceptions concerning her intentions or her work.

If you cant handle a certain word in the title of this thread without the urge to start derailing it - thats on you, not on me.

-
In depth answers on the latest post trying to pull interpretation authority, by basically calling me an idiot that perceives things wrong. Chances are, that I am not.

I think you missed the point of the talk.

I dont think I do, or did.

First of all, this has nothing to do with millanials (by the way, that was a great way to derail this thread).

I've now stated for the third time, that this was a frame I added, because I percieved this to be a problem with being young, naive - and don't thinking things through. The use of a word thats a descriptor - cant derail a tread. Thats all of your input (not you specifically, but the culture activists attacking this thread for the use of this word), not mine.

She is a student and was interestet in what was really behind the Social Ranking in China.

Thats correct, I didnt despute that at any point.

The media here really glosses about the detail in how it is working, the prototyps, how it affect the people and so on.

Thats a fallacy, I read articles about the main social scoring system in more than ten news outlets before I've watched the talk - I've also read better in depth analysis about the inner workings of the "main" system (the one thats about to be deployed nation wide) in the economist. Better than the characterization that was given in the talk.

It is also not showing how the people in China react to the introduction and what they think about it.

That was the outcome of her study. She analyzed potential points of failure of the system - then published those. She looked at behavioral surveys of "what people would do within the system". Both in theory (statistical modeling), and referencing surveys done by her friends.

In here talk, she also presented her model agent and how it would fair in the current Social System. At the end of her talk, she mentioned quite a view disatvantages of the system and some of them aredisastrous for the society.

She didnt present a model agent, she modeled different agents with different decision capabilities, within the dataset, then crossreferenced this with behavioral data. She almost pointed out no disadvantages for society ("people in china see this more as a chance") - but she pointed out potential points of failure, that could be adressed before rollout, yes.

This talk wasn't advertising the Social System, but rather to show how it works in detail. She is enthusiastic about the topic because it was/is an interessting field to study, not because the System is good for society.

So her enthusiasm was directed at what exactly? Her ability to access this information? Her chance to get to study it without reflecting on actual societal outcomes?

But in essence, we are not as far apart on this point. Absolute naivite about what she touched there lead to enthusiasm about studying the topic - which she carried forward unfiltered and unreflected.

Its like looking at a science project, that had an ethics commission missing from conception to realization, but needed it every step of the way.

This is what she showed at multiple points within her talk. I'm not backing down on this. And some of you are closely walking the line of defending gloating over totalitarian ideology - just because you don't want others to draw a connection between this, and being young, naive and unreflected. With a fake drive towards social responsibility, thats dropped at the first juncture, when someone dangles "privileged access" over you as a carrot. The dataset she was working on, most likely will never get released - even though she's still very hopeful that she only has to talk to someone, that gives her the go ahead. Good luck.

Also - I've learned close to nothing new coming out of her research, as an interested party versed in previous articles (not studies) on the matter. Which might have something to do with, that she really chose to model 5 random actions within a data set "using python", rather than than thinking about any of the built in dynamics in theory. Girl looking at big data - then doing random experiment, then reporting results, without thinking much about any of the implications.

Is my main criticism - still stands fully - as of now.

And no - I dont think I misunderstood her intentions, or what she was saying.

ALSO NEVER blame me for using a word you didnt like, because it wasnt political correct enough for you. Thats not ok.

Happy new year, by the way.

 

[notimp]

Lets look some more at the whitewashing, a media attention hungry millennial is able to inflict in two days using twitter.

Antonia Hmaidi‏ @ToniHDS 27. Dez. 2018
Awesome graphical summary of my talk. Wish I was that talented!

Hope! (Dystopia in western media!)

(Also misrepresentation, because the "intelligence" comes in later by point weighing, subtotals, ... As she said herself, not only the total number is shared between ministries and the private sector, but the whole dataset.)

The government really just tries to re-educate, and allocate resources better! Lets go for restoring trust, I say!

And now the negatives - or are they? Good Score good hotel! Thumbs up for that!
Look at how positive this all looks! It's even got "universities" in the entirely useless graphical summery!

I mean, what do you say to that - except -

Antonia Hmaidi‏ @ToniHDS 27. Dez. 2018
Awesome graphical summary of my talk. Wish I was that talented!

Lets look at another self promotional tweet:

Antonia Hmaidi‏ @ToniHDS 28. Dez. 2018
Schöner Artikel zu meinem gestrigen Talk auf deutsch: http://www.taz.de/!5562037/ .

(Translation: Nice Article regarding my talk yesterday, in german.)

Lets look at the article:

Nachdem sie mehrere Simulationen zu drei der rund 70 verschiedenen Modellen durchgeführt hat, kommt Hmaidi zu dem Schluss, dass der Erfolg oder Misserfolg des Systems von dessen genauer Ausgestaltung abhängen wird: „Dieses System ist sehr komplex und schon kleine Veränderungen können zu großen Auswirkungen führen.“

(Translation: After having done several simulations using three of the approximately 70 different models, Hmaidi concludes that the success or failure of the systems will depend on their exact design: "This system is very complex and even small changes could lead to big consequences.")

This is a platitude of a journalist that hasnt understood what she was doing. She was doing statistical modeling in a big data environment. Small changes in your behavioral model having big impact on the outcome, is baseline information - for starting to do so. Its not the "result after doing many simulations".

Kein großes Überwachungssystem
Grundsätzlich ist das für die Regierung wohl vielversprechendste System, das derzeit in China als Modellprojekt läuft, weit weniger ausgefeilt, als in der Berichterstattung im Westen dargestellt. Statt eines großen allumfassenden algorithmischen Überwachungssystems gibt es vor allem ein vielschichtiges System, das regional je unterschiedlich ausgeprägt ist, [...] Die Regionalität kann dazu führen, dass es einen Wettlauf zum niedrigsten Standard gebe, sagt Hmaidi: Also dass Menschen dorthin ziehen, wo sie am wenigsten überwacht werden und am einfachsten Punkte bekommen.

(Translation: No big surveillance system
In general, the most promising system for the government, that currently runs as a test project in China, is by far less polished than the "western reporting" would have make you believe. Instead of an all encompassing algorithmically surveillance system - its more like a very diverse system with many regional differences, and [...] Regionality could lead to a race towards the bottom, so Hmaidi: So that people would move to where they would be surveilled the least, and would get the most points.

Yes, and thats why its still in a testing stage. Where you know - they still test things. Considering regional movability for people as a "fix" or "hack" is outrageous and bordering on a lie.

In Zukunft könnten viele ChinesInnen also Kredite erhalten, weil sie einen guten Score haben – obwohl sie gar nicht verlässliche RückzahlerInnen sind.

(Translation: In the future many chinese could get financial credit, even though they aren dependable creditors that would repay their debt.)

Thats a misinterpretation of the stated fact, that social dependability and credit repayment dependability are only weakly correlated. It also neglects what was actually said in the talk - namely, that the chinese government used this to advertise, that more people would be able to get loans in the future.

Und letztlich führe auch das übergroße Interesse der Regierung an der Ermittlung und Bestrafung von „Vertrauensbrechern“ dazu, dass wenig getan werde, um zu vermeiden, dass Menschen fälschlicherweise als nicht-vertrauenswürdig eingestuft werden.

(Translation: And finally the focus of the government on finding and punishing "trust criminals" would lead to the situation that too little is done to prevent people from being wrongly identified as not trustworthy.)

Thats the journalist not understanding what "they dont care as much about false negatives" means, and inventing a causational relationship that doesnt exist - AND eating up the premise, that a low score would in general identify "non trustworthy people". Wonderful.

Langfristig könne all dies dazu führen, dass das Vertrauen in das Social Scoring erodiert und sich alternative, inoffizielle Systeme etablieren, wie sie auch heute schon in China gängig sind.

(Translation: Longterm, this could lead to the trust into the social score eroding and other alternative inofficial systems, like they are already used today - becoming more important over time.)

This is the journalist selectively not remembering, that the chinese government explicitly forbid the use of alternative systems, in any of the state or semi private entities. And that stuff like "your kid being able to study", or "you being able to do long distance traveling" - is attached to the official social score. Thanks.

So that really only leaves one thing to say:

Antonia Hmaidi‏ @ToniHDS 28. Dez. 2018
Schöner Artikel zu meinem gestrigen Talk auf deutsch: http://www.taz.de/!5562037/ .

(Translation: Nice Article regarding my talk yesterday, in german.)
-

Or if you want to go with my version: Social media profile optimizing millenial, not caring at all what her behavior is causing, or which public image she is generating.

Also - as the taz.de article concludes - nice tips for the implementation kid. You truly were a gift as a researcher. (For the communist party.)

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Millennial finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference

Here is a millennial at a german hacker conference, thinking that social control is cool

Lets look some more at the whitewashing, a media attention hungry millennial is able to inflict in two days using twitter.

But then, this is really not the thread to obsess about millennials.

Which is it

 

[notimp]

Not the last one - this was literally a posting out of frustration, that you guys keep harping onto this concept, of you having to defend a poor women, that was accused of being a millennial.

You mobbed me to the point where I - for a short time - gave into your demands of being able to talk about this like it was all about a millennial being treated unfairly.

It isnt. At all.

But thank you for trying to draw me some rope to hang out of the only contradiction you could find in this thread which has nothing to do with the initial story, or any of the arguments surrounding it brought forward.

You guys are pretty much unbelievable.

Now can I have my thread back - please.

Also - just because I find it important to list here as well, the two comments beneath the taz.de article about the talk also cant quite believe what they are reading. And none of them was me. Nor did I convince other people to post that sentiment. Its just what everyone with critical thinking capacity has to end up at looking at that story. You chose to rather make it about discrimination being called a word you didnt like.

You tried to nudge me, give me "funny advice" which words to use or not use, discredit me, fake me out. Bully me... Shall I continue?

The only bit of advice I had to sell in the initial article was to never become that person, thats more concerned about social perception of others, than to understand the concepts he or she is paddling. You clearly didn't take my advice. This was the entire intent regarding how this should have affected you.

 

[The Catboy]

Not the last one - this was literally a posting out of frustration, that you guys keep harping onto this concept, of you having to defend a poor women, that was accused of being a millennial.

You mobbed me to the point where I - for a short time - gave into your demands of being able to talk about this like it was all about a millennial being treated unfairly.

It isnt. At all.

But thank you for trying to draw me some rope to hang out of the only contradiction you could find in this thread which has nothing to do with the initial story, or any of the arguments surrounding it brought forward.

You guys are pretty much unbelievable.

Now can I have my thread back - please.

Also - just because I find it important to list here as well, the two comments beneath the taz.de article about the talk also cant quite believe what they are reading. And none of them was me. Nor did I convince other people to post that sentiment. Its just what everyone with critical thinking capacity has to end up at looking at that story. You chose to rather make it about discrimination being called a word you didnt like.

You tried to nudge me, give me "funny advice" which words to use or not use, discredit me, fake me out. Bully me... Shall I continue?

The only bit of advice I had to sell in the initial article was to never become that person, thats more concerned about social perception of others, than to understand the concepts he or she is paddling. You clearly didn't take my advice. This was the entire intent regarding how this should have affected you.

You created your own problem and how people reacted to your creation is completely based on both your actions and you avoiding their questions/comments.

 

[Subtle Demise]

So here's a scary thought for everyone to consider: society as a whole, even in the United States, is growing more comfortable with totalitarianism and actually embracing it. Why is that? Well because for one, it means they have a chance to influence the government to force people to conform to their ideas. We are seeing this now with the left's attempted suppression of free speech at every chance they get, or the right's push for Christian theocracy.

For another, it gives them a false sense of security. They don't realize that if a truly totalitarian regime ever took power that that security would be gone in an instant.

They don't notice that the police have become militarized to the point where it's less likely to die in a warzone than in a police interaction. Police can simply "fear for their life" and shoot someone 50 times and get a paid vacation out of the deal. The military actually has rules of engagement to follow.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

So here's a scary thought for everyone to consider: society as a whole, even in the United States, is growing more comfortable with totalitarianism and actually embracing it. Why is that? Well because for one, it means they have a chance to influence the government to force people to conform to their ideas. We are seeing this now with the left's attempted suppression of free speech at every chance they get, or the right's push for Christian theocracy.

For another, it gives them a false sense of security. They don't realize that if a truly totalitarian regime ever took power that that security would be gone in an instant.

They don't notice that the police have become militarized to the point where it's less likely to die in a warzone than in a police interaction. Police can simply "fear for their life" and shoot someone 50 times and get a paid vacation out of the deal. The military actually has rules of engagement to follow.

It's interesting, I keep hearing "suppression of free speech!" being used by libertarians and conservatives to attack liberal parties, but in reality... When does that actually happen? The only time I've seen liberals truly advocate for free speech is when it actually involves hate speech; which is to say, implying or advocating for violence towards a disadvantaged class of people. Even then, you'd still have the people from the Anarchist party who would say all government censorship is wrong and would prefer to take the more direct approach (i.e. yelling over the demonstrator, punching the Nazi, etc.)

 

[supersonicwaffle]

It's interesting, I keep hearing "suppression of free speech!" being used by libertarians and conservatives to attack liberal parties, but in reality... When does that actually happen? The only time I've seen liberals truly advocate for free speech is when it actually involves hate speech; which is to say, implying or advocating for violence towards a disadvantaged class of people. Even then, you'd still have the people from the Anarchist party who would say all government censorship is wrong and would prefer to take the more direct approach (i.e. yelling over the demonstrator, punching the Nazi, etc.)

Did you mean liberals truly advocating for a limitation on free speech?

With regards to hate speech you give the HUGE problem people have with it yourself. Legislation needs to apply equally and mustn’t apply only to a certain class.
You guys are doing everyone a disservice to allow these authoritarians to call themselves liberal.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Did you mean liberals truly advocating for a limitation on free speech?

Yes, one that doesn't stem from an extreme cause. Our Constitution protects speech in the sense that there can be no law against it as long as it is:
1) True, AND
2a) Used to protest the government, or
2b) Used to organize a group, or
2c) Used in publication, or
3) Religious

It protects nothing more than that, nor should it. In fact, laws have been passed that explicitly bar the use of inciteful language.
Additionally, it only protects you from the government; if a random citizen doesn't like what you're blasting into a public space, they have just as much a right to tell you to fuck off (and even organize a group to tell you to fuck off) as you do to say whatever it is you're saying, for instance.

With regards to hate speech you give the HUGE problem people have with it yourself. Legislation needs to apply equally and mustn’t apply only to a certain class.
You guys are doing everyone a disservice to allow these authoritarians to call themselves liberal.

I guess I'm confused. What class do you think is being unfairly targeted with hate speech laws? Choose your next words very carefully.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Yes, one that doesn't stem from an extreme cause. Our Constitution protects speech in the sense that there can be no law against it as long as it is:
1) True, AND
2a) Used to protest the government, or
2b) Used to organize a group, or
2c) Used in publication, or
3) Religious

It protects nothing more than that, nor should it. In fact, laws have been passed that explicitly bar the use of inciteful language.
Additionally, it only protects you from the government; if a random citizen doesn't like what you're blasting into a public space, they have just as much a right to tell you to fuck off (and even organize a group to tell you to fuck off) as you do to say whatever it is you're saying, for instance.


I guess I'm confused. What class do you think is being unfairly targeted with hate speech laws? Choose your next words very carefully.

Everyone who isn’t or doesn’t identify (jury’s still out on who gets to identify as what as well) as a member of a protected class.

We agree that legislative limitation on speech is reasonable in its current state. Point is that the proper way to deal with hate speech would be criminal charges or lawsuits in this case. This should clue you in that the current discussion around hatespeech is about shifting goalposts, control over what speech is allowed and exerting power over wrongthinkers.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Everyone who isn’t or doesn’t identify (jury’s still out on who gets to identify as what as well) as a member of a protected class.

Is there any situation in which that's actually been an issue? (i.e. not just someone bitching about being unfairly targeted, but the government actually wrongfully targeting someone who is not a protected class)

We agree that legislative limitation on speech is reasonable in its current state. Point is that the proper way to deal with hate speech would be criminal charges or lawsuits in this case.

Right. So what's the issue?

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Is there any situation in which that's actually been an issue? (i.e. not just someone bitching about being unfairly targeted, but the government actually wrongfully targeting someone who is not a protected class)

It is an issue in countries that have adopted hate speech legislation such as Great Britian. I will look for examples and get back to you with something tangible. There’s also been first hand reports of GB citizens in this forum section recently.

Right. So what's the issue?

You’re igonoring the other half of the argument. There’s people, organizations and parties advocating for legislation to further limit speech in most of the western countries. Hate speech as a term is a vehicle to convey that the current limitations on speech aren’t enough.