Talk:1390: Research Ethics

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 11:39, 4 July 2014 by ExternalMonolog (talk | contribs) (Comment to another comment and comment on the comic)
Jump to: navigation, search

I was expecting something else for a comic on July 4th. 0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101 (talk page) 05:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not every xkcd fan is from the US, Randall has to keep the comics global. 06:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Randall writes "what" twice, which is a classic optical illusion." So - did it he do this on purpose (I fail to see the connection with the subject), or is it just the explanation of why he missed the typo he made? Jkrstrt (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very deliberate. The illusion demonstrates what the brain chooses not to see. Facebook is making some content not visible to us as an experiment. There really is far less subtext to this than you think there is. There isn't some deep meaning. It was an experiment to see if we would see it. 07:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's governing our lives". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Then again, it's not really supposed to be governing our lives, is it? Any impact it has your life is because you gave it the permissions and information to do so, which was voluntary (by sharing your selfies and rants under their terms) and not mandated by an overreaching government. I agree that the text is sarcastic, but in a different way than you mentioned. 10:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code. 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the title text as bitter sarcasm. And it plays in to the message in another comic, I don't know which, about someone being warned not to place his private information in the custody of another without strict limits on the power of that other. (I'm playing the world's tiniest violin" was the punch line on that one. Also used by The Kids In the Hall!) The impact by those who manage and manipulate information is seldom clear and both it's motivation and it's impact on our decisions remains not only largely unnoticed in daily life but also unknowable. Just because we give control of information to another doesn't mean we agree to be either a lab rat or open to manipulation by them whether we recognize it or not. Whether it's someone trying to achieve power (government) or someone trying to earn a profit (business), the burden-of-proof should be on them that the effect is benign. I know this sounds a bit Ayn Randian, a person whose politics I deeply distrust, but even scary people can get things right some of the time.

The title text is an oblique reference to the implications of recent SCOTUS ruling on corporations having similar rights as people (albeit to do with religion, as opposed to privacy), no?