Schroeder (aka Ralph) traces a dialectic of perspectives on “big data” from Marx to Hayek to Weber. Which of the three views do you find most compelling and why?
-
In my opinion, Marx's perspective is the most compelling because big data is undeniably deployed to exploit users. Weber's point is perhaps the most reasonable athough it's more like a model, which is not that easy to make real in the world. However, it's so important to care about privacy. On the other hand there are ways to find a better concept about how to use big data. In my opinion, Weber's perspective is not sufficiently compelling to say that it's best among the three given perspectives.
-
The Marxian perspective regarding "exploitation" was pretty convicing to me. There is so much evidence of large social media companies weaponizing our data and trying to shift our behavior.
-
The portion of the Marxist argument that "users should be paid for the their data" may encourage companies to better explain what data they want/need and why they rely on users in order to gather that data. May also push companies to consider what they need vs what they want.
-
Marxist perspective on big data resonates most, especially in today's world of "tech giants". These firms' often cryptic T&C and opaque operations means that data are used in unclear ways. By nationalizing, which does not necessarily mean full authoratarian control, the state can act as a unbiased protector of individual rights. However, the intended outcome is only possible if the state operates faithfully and in the interests of the people.
-
I believe Mayer-Schönberger's perspective is useful to understand how data actually works in society and how markets are using data to make informed decisions. Hayek understood that information is produced in a decentralized fashion by human agents and is then embedded in social outcomes through the mediation of price. The idea that data could facilitate, improve, and expand the domains of this process is an interesting, and I believe accurate, view on modern capitalism.
-
Hayek is often misconstrued/misportrayed by both acolytes and opponents alike--he wasn't a "NO WELFARE EVER, THE MARKET AT ALL COSTS" (he supported a welfare state) like he is sometimes potrayed as being, but instead his main point was noting how prices could convey information that no top-down planner could possibly properly account for. He argued very strongly against a centrally planned economy. I think this still holds true today--even if tech giants have a lot of data and a lot of smart people, I don't think they have the ability to use a central planning system rather than using prices as the main mechanism (this is a bit off topic/tangential, sorry) A lot of the time we can't even ourselves consciously state the factors that go into our choices.
-
Hayek may or may not be the most compelling, but he's the philosopher most quoted of the three of these in Silicon Valley. His concept of openness in information sharing is the basis for much of the philosophical justification for data collection and analysis without the understanding, if not necessarily consent, of most people whose data is being collected. He's an idealist, but his concept of the price mechanism for revelation of hidden data has had some unwelcome effects.
-
Depends on the context. In particular, two different aspects ought to be considered: (a) the socio-political context of the state, and (b) the approach of the general public toward that socio-political structure. In cases where the regime is authoritarian and opresses the population, a Marxist perspective is likely to be the dominant one due to the natural consequence of the actions of such states. This is not the case, however, with western liberal democracies, where endorsing such Marxist perspectives might not be as grounded due to the lack of exploitationist opportunities.
-
I found that Weber was the most compelling because Marx and Hayek seemed to be too much on either extreme. Marx was a little too pessimistic, and Hayek a little too blindly optimistic, and at least in the way that Schroeder framed Weber's argument, Weber seemed like he took a more middle-ground approach.
-
Weber appears to have the most differentiated opionion on the matter, as he contrasts the benefits of data-enhanced markets with the limits that are introduced by the very nature of this evolution (i.e., bureaucracy). Marxists and Hayekians appear to consider these developements as being either unilaterally good (Hayek) or detrimental (Marxist) to markets and participants therein.
-
I found the Weberian perspective most compelling due to its nuance. Using a Weberian approach, we are able to to recognize the benefits of having a wealth of data while directly tying them to the pitfalls of the rationalization of human experience and value. This contrasts with both the Marxist and Hayeken views, that take on a more dichotamous approach. Mau's discussion of the evolution of numerocrats as the new gatekeeprs who rely on an accumulation of data ties this together neatly, as he higlights how status and choice fluidity become more rigid as we depersonalize our valuation of human intercations.
-
Weber's view was the most compelling for me, as he took a more 'nuanced' approach. Both the Marxist and Hayekian narratives fail to acknowledge a 'holistic' view whereby both benefits and flaws are taken into account.
-
There is some truth to be found in each perspective -- each brings up good points that could hold true in different societal, cultural, and economic contexts. As stated in the reading, we should not overlook the fact that there are varieties of capitalism and states, which also differ in how they use data.
-
I think it depends on how we define "success" within the market. There are different measures of what constitutes success in economic systems, whether that be innovation/progress or equality/equity (ideally both, but difficult to achieve in reality). Weber presents the most balanced view, but there are certainly merits to all three arguments.
-
I thought that one of the points that the Marxist perspectives needs more validating is the point of work and data being similar enough that the concepts surrounding exploitation hold, e.g. someone's work is finite whereas data can be replicated.
- Related point: the economics of information are weird. Data is a nonrival good that can be infinitely replicated at a marginal cost of damn near zero. For an early and influential analysis, see Benkler, 2006, especially Chapter 2.
- Also, is data the new oil?
-
Weberian idea is most compelling to me. Big data on the whole has great potential but often causes benefits and harms at the same time. That's why Weber's view seems the most realistic to me. The question then turns to how we can minimize that harm while we retain the benefits.
-
Weber's view appeals to me the most, granted that the perspectives of Marx and Hayek were very much suited to the context of their times. With big data flourishing across the world these days, we indeed see varying use cases across countries -- some for noble, and some for less noble causes -- which made me more cognisant of how context-dependent the application of big data is.
-
I found Weber's view the most compelling; specifically because it is the only view that relates back to state building (traditionally that states were the only entities that had the ability/legitimacy to collect this much data). Additionally, Weber's view of rationalization seems to be relevant regardless of where on the Marxist/Hayekian spectrum.
-
Marxian idea of protecting against extraction of profit from individuals makes sense, but paying people for their data does not. Data does not lend itself to ownership, both due to its low monetary value to the individual and high social value to others. Data should not be commodified by the ‘right to own’ and a ‘need to sell’, but its uses should be explained in advocacy for a ‘right to know’ -- kind of like GDPR format -- so I agree with the Marxist 'give it back to the people' thing but not if this is framed as a financial transfer, only if its framed as a 'knowledge as power' transfer where info asymmetries are reduced between firm and individual.
As a final note, remember that (a) nuance is great! But also (b) fuck nuance.