Managers reportedly inspired contractors to mischaracterize the information assortment as a “selfie sport,” akin to Snapchat filters comparable to Face Swap. School college students who agreed to the scans later advised the Every day Information that they didn’t recall ever listening to the identify “Google,” and had been merely advised to play with the cellphone in trade for a present card. To entice homeless customers in LA to consent, contractors had been allegedly instructed to say a California regulation that permits the reward playing cards to be exchanged for money. The entire episode is, in a bleak method, an obvious try to diversify AI coaching knowledge whereas paying individuals for his or her info. However the result’s fully dystopian.
In response to The New York Occasions, Google quickly suspended the information assortment pending an inner investigation. In an emailed assertion to The Atlantic, a Google spokeswoman stated, “We’re taking these claims significantly and investigating them. The allegations relating to truthfulness and consent are in violation of our necessities for volunteer analysis research and the coaching that we offered.”
It’s baffling that this purported scheme, which the Every day Information’ reporting suggests commodified black and homeless People, was supposed to scale back racial bias. However because the Harvard technologist Shoshanna Zuboff has argued, individuals have all the time been the “uncooked supplies” for Huge Tech. Merchandise just like the Pixel or iPhone, and companies like Google and Fb, gather our knowledge as we use them, corporations refine that knowledge and, with every new technology, promote us extra superior merchandise that gather extra helpful knowledge. On this framework, our habits, our decisions, our likes, and our dislikes aren’t in contrast to soybeans or petroleum or iron ore: Pure assets which can be extracted and processed by large companies, for enormous revenue.
Typically this seems to be like a sensible thermostat getting higher at predicting how cool you want your private home, and generally it seems to be like a $1 trillion firm allegedly providing $5 reward playing cards to homeless black individuals to higher promote a $1,200 cellphone.
Because the techlash continues, some lawmakers are searching for to empower their constituents to demand that corporations like Google pay customers for his or her knowledge. California and Alaska have debated laws to cost corporations for utilizing individuals’s private knowledge. Andrew Yang, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has advocated treating knowledge as a “property proper.” Fb co-founder Chris Hughes suggests a “knowledge dividend,” a income tax on corporations monetizing huge quantities of public knowledge, paid out to customers throughout the nation like Common Primary Revenue.
However following that line of pondering makes it clear that we nonetheless haven’t any moral or financial framework for valuing knowledge collected from individuals throughout completely different social contexts. Ought to tech corporations pay extra for dark-skinned topics as a result of they’re underrepresented in coaching knowledge? If our our bodies are commodities, what’s a good worth, and who ought to set it? The info possession thought is, basically, restricted: Even when we handle, with the assistance of Hughes or Yang or state legislatures, to barter a excessive worth for our knowledge, we’re nonetheless on the market.
In a backwards method, actions to pay customers for the information that tech corporations take from them solely corroborate the method by which Silicon Valley turns our faces into commodities. Think about an unregulated race-to-the-bottom market the place corporations goal essentially the most weak for his or her knowledge, restrained solely by the alarmingly low bar for consent to enhance their merchandise. It will look so much like paying homeless individuals $5 for a face scan.
We wish to hear what you consider this text. Submit a letter to the editor or write to [email protected]