Facebook has taken a lot of criticism recently in the media -- enough that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg bought some very expensive full-page ads in newspapers across America to defend his company. He’s expected to testify before several U.S. Congressional committees; he has refused to testify to a British parliamentary investigation.
The problem, of course, is that about 87 million Facebook subscribers had their data hacked by Cambridge Analytica.
Subscribers have been cancelling in droves. Victoria’s mayor Lisa Helps made a public issue about shutting down her Facebook account. The hashtag #getoffFacebook has been getting almost as much exposure as #MeToo.
Facebook’s share values have apparently plunged over 15 per cent.
Perhaps Facebook deserves its criticism; perhaps it doesn’t. But I think the critics have missed the point. They’ve concentrated on what’s called “data mining,” as if it were intrinsically wrong. They’ve focussed on what was done, not why it was done.
Long practiced
I contend that there is nothing wrong with data mining itself.
Data mining is not new. Google does it to make sure you get the answers you’re looking for. Air Miles does it to track your purchasing habits. Every political party does it, to target potential supporters. Facebook itself does it, to identify potential “friends” for you.
Even the traditional academic dissertation is a form of data mining. Few students get to do original research. Mostly, they comb through existing information, connecting diverse threads and assembling a credible body of knowledge.
In my university days, we gathered our data on 3x5 file cards. Cambridge Analytica used sophistical search algorithms. They’re both a form of data mining.
The difference is the purpose for which the data is used.
Benefits for many
Indeed, the B.C. government recently endorsed data mining. Health Minister Adrian Dix granted $10 million to a firm called Therapeutics Initiative, to research whether new medications perform as well in real life as their manufacturers claim they did in clinical trials.
As the Victoria Times Colonisteditorialized, “The B.C. Health Ministry possesses one of the largest medical-data archives in the world, with tens of millions of files reaching back 25 years.”
Combined with data from a variety of health agencies, such a study could define beyond question the effectiveness of the increasingly expensive drugs now available for treatment.
The federal Health Ministry must approve every drug offered for sale in Canada. But it doesn’t deal with effectiveness. It cares only whether a new drug is safe.
“Some [new drugs] can be lifesaving,” wrote the Times Colonist. “Others might be no better than existing drugs that are much cheaper.
“And here industry sales tactics come into play. There are about 600 representatives of drug firms in B.C., whose job is to encourage physicians to prescribe their product. Therapeutics Initiative has a staff of less than 30. The [Health] ministry can overcome that mismatch only if it brings its unique database to bear.
“Facts will speak louder than sales pitches.”
Of ends and means
The difference between the data mining done by Cambridge Analytica and Therapeutics Initiative is not the means but the end. One was intended to benefit a limited few; the other, to benefit the many.
Cambridge Analytica’s data mining furthered the causes of a few, very rich, and very conservative owners. Its parent company, the SCL Group, is partly owned by the family of American hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, a major funder for right-wing political organizations. Also by Steve Bannon, former executive chair of the right-wing Breitbart News, and a key strategist in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Despite much of the media hoopla, this is not about the invasion of personal privacy. In the cyber world, there’s no such thing. Once you post it to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or whatever, you have made it public. Period.
Besides, Facebook users who got hacked had signed onto a digital app which specifically authorized the program to access their information.
And if I read the fine print in Facebook’s sign-up correctly, anything you post belongs to Facebook, not to you.
So it was not personal privacy being raided. It was corporate privacy. A much more serious offence, it would seem.
Still, I maintain, it’s the purpose that needs to be examined, not the process.
Cambridge Analytic did its data mining to defraud, to deceive, and to manipulate people -- without their permission or knowledge. The data mining of B.C. medical histories is to save lives by making treatment more effective, regardless of a patient’s political affiliation or wealth.
Same process; huge difference.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Last week’s column about Easter and The Resurrection raised some interesting reactions. Art Hildebrand, for example, questioned the wording of the Apostles’ Creed: “On the third day he rose again…”
“Again?” he wondered. “As if it already had happened before?”
Steve Roney argued, “I really do not think that a Christian has any option but to accept the Resurrection as a literal, honest-to-God fact. St. Paul makes this plain in 1 Corinthians 15. If it did not happen, our faith is empty.
“This is interesting because it makes Christianity a scientific faith, in Popper's sense that it is objectively falsifiable. If anybody had ever been able to prove, over the last 2,000 years, that Jesus had not risen from the dead -- if anyone had been able to produce the corpse -- the whole thing would have collapsed. There seems to be no similar objective test for any other major religion.
“This actually makes Christianity more scientific than much we accept as science.”
Ray Shaver in Toronto liked my treatment of the Resurrection: “You have a gifted way of interpreting the scriptures for a modern scientific world that I appreciate so much. I sense it would not be appreciated by evangelicals, but the I have never subscribed to literal interpretation of the Bible, including the Synoptic Gospels.”
And Ruth Shaver in New Hampshire wrote, “I used the ‘cliffhanging’ ending of Mark 16:8 this morning to say that we are the proof of the Resurrection: we who gather in the name of the Risen Christ and who seek to make the world just and righteous on Earth as it is in heaven. Thanks to the many commentators who noted that Mark begins with ‘This is the BEGINNING of the Good News of Jesus Christ...’, the cliffhanger makes more sense because then we get to see ourselves in the story. I don't know what the Resurrection was; it's above my pay grade. But I believe Resurrection happened then and I believe it happens, as you say, every time anyone or any group of people takes up the clarion call for justice and righteousness for all people.”
Tom Watson was surprised at my claim that “In the majority of Christian congregations, the preacher will treat the Resurrection as a literal, physical, honest-to-gawd fact.” “It had me saying, ‘Really?’ I thought that would be the case in fundamentalist circles but not in more liberal or progressive ones...although, in fairness, I suspect many preachers just skirt around the issue...but if what you suggest is true over all it's one more reason why 21st people are abandoning the church in droves.
“Personally, I much prefer your ending -- or, rather, non-ending -- to the story.”
Tom was referring to my unfinished parable. Isabel Gibson also had a comment about it: “As we drive back to Ottawa from Myrtle Beach SC on Easter weekend, we've lost count of how many sets of ‘three wooden crosses’ we've seen -- in front of churches, of course, but more often out in farmer's fields and on top of hills. Put there by individuals or groups or whole communities, I guess.
“I don't know if it's pertinent to your parable, but it's at least a touching expression of faith.”
Bob Rollwagen asked, “Why would one not want to end the parable on Easter morning? If it had ended on Good Friday, would there be a Christian faith today? The disciples were able to move forward in many directions with this single understanding of these dramatic events resulting from the memory of a few witnesses trying to comprehend the meaning of what they saw and felt. The conclusions they came to allowed them to build their faith in the strength and power of love, hope and peace. We are so fortunate that they did believe in the Resurrection. He has come again, many times, every day in the life of millions for centuries.”
Laurna Tallman thought I had been too selective: “Jesus is not the only person to have been raised from the dead. We have the Old Testament stories of Elijah, Elisha, another related to the grave of Elisha, the woman of Nain's son raised by Jesus, Lazarus, Jairus's daughter (who may have been in a coma), various saints in Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion, Tabitha, and Eutychus. Numerous recent stories of resurrections abound. There are book-length collections of them.”
Laurna noted that in former times, people often mistook deep coma for death, and explored the possibility that Jesus survived the cross, but with such critical injuries that his physical death came at what’s called The Ascension.
She went on, “Today, when medical people debate the ‘dead or alive’ condition of people on various means of life support, we learn that ‘death’ is a moving target that can be defined in terms of the collapse of one or another part of the body: heart, brain, lungs, kidneys -- to which I would add ears, because they can determine the level of unconsciousness of the brain. Beyond those medical facts are new understandings of energy configurations beyond my scope of knowledge… My personal experiences of awareness of ‘the presence’ of people who have died make me curious and expectant about life after death. If we stay open to those possibilities we are more likely to discover whatever is the reality.”
******************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the ‘Reply’ button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet