Second Learning Journal

     The reading We Are Data gave me a new insight into how data is perceived on the internet. I knew that anything posted online or shared about oneself existed on the internet permanently, but I didn't know that certain legislatures acted as a judge on who can have data removed or not. By giving one of the most used search engines in the world the power to make this distinction, a lot of responsibility must be in place and a smart and active team should keep monitoring this. The article details how Google can get a say in "which search results get censored and which lives are deemed available for public consumption" (Cheney-Lippold 5). Google preserves the right to use its own metric for determining the celebrity status of individuals, and I'm very curious about the grey area of this scale and certain instances where they missed the mark. Someone like Kim Kardashian would obviously meet this standard on most scales, but what about an up-and-coming content creator? Should we even have the right to pry into anyone's life in this manner? What justifies having your privacy invaded? 

    These are just some of the questions I have for this multifaceted topic and only time will tell what changes in our society should be made regarding its ethics. I am happy though that those who commit crimes and want to have them erased from the internet are prevented from doing so, as I believe that is information that should stay ready and available in most circumstances. As for my own social media use, this already makes me more sure of my prior notions of being careful of what I post online. I will be even more thoughtful with my personal information and will keep in mind my digital footprint and what information I put out in the world. Professionally, I think this gives me more insight into what I may be able to find on people online and the ethics of that. If a lot of information on individuals is available and allowed to exist on the web, that are more things I can ethically find and utilize in the workplace. The procedures and ethics regarding data manipulation seem to be ever-changing, and I'm sure as time goes on more and more restrictions will be put in place to protect users who have no idea that their privacy is being invaded.






Cheney-Lippold, J. (2019). In We are data: Algorithms and the making of our Digital Selves (pp. 3–36). introduction, New York University Press.

Comments

  1. Hi Nathan, good work! I found it interesting that you say that the future may lead to more restrictions when I believe the opposite. You see, the type of data that websites gather is only valuable in mass. If I am an advertiser, I am interested in reaching a certain demographic. The individual is not valuable by itself, brands don’t market to a singular person. Instead, brands market on factors such as gender, religion, and age groups. The article explains “…data itself had become a business, maybe even the central commodity for digital capital” (Cheney-Lippold, 2019). If data is the business, it is unlikely that a lot of legislative action is made on the subject. This is due to influences such as lobbyists and political groups financing their way to influence. Therefore, I think that the future may reveal your prediction to be in the opposite direction.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Metrics and Analytics: lj 3

What I think about Social Media: LJ1

Welcome to my blog!