Democracy’s Dilemma (https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/forum-henry-farrell-bruce-schneier-democracys-dilemma/)
Why don’t we just ban targeted advertising? by Gilad Edelman (Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising_ _ WIRED.pdf )
Democracy’s Dilemma (https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/forum-henry-farrell-bruce-schneier-democracys-dilemma/)
Why don’t we just ban targeted advertising? by Gilad Edelman (Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising_ _ WIRED.pdf )
In Democracy’s Dilemma by Henry Farrell and Bruce Schneider, the authors discuss how telecommunication technologies of the modern day result in dynamics for autocracies and democracies. With telecommunication technologies being more decentralized and interpersonal when compared to older methods of communication, it can be difficult for society to find social cohesion that results in productive public discourse. In democracies, the free flow of information along with this decentralization allows for groups to sew distrust in the social fabric of society, encouraging distrust in election results, fellow citizens, and the value in democracy as a whole.
As a solution to this, the authors argue that democracies need to reform to allow for more dynamic social disagreements along with more stark social disagreements. However, there is a question of how deep can disagreements be in a democracy before democratic systems become dysfunctional and no longer beneficial to citizens? Of course, it is important that groups that disagree with one another continue to coexist in democratic systems for the negotiation of ideas to result in better policy. However, I believe it can be worth considering that there are some disagreements that warrant the creation of separate governments. If a group believes that they are unable to preserve their identity, culture, and values under a democracy that does not represent them, there is an argument to be made that the creation of a separate democracy is worthwhile. For example, some argue that Puerto Rico would be unable to pursue its own autonomy and protect its distinct culture if admitted into the United States as a state. The example of Puerto Rican statehood is complex and not entirely one-sided, but it indicates that there are legitimate, not anti-democracy reasons for establishing separate democracies in the event of stark difference. Also, I do not argue that certain sects of the United States should establish their own governments, instead I want to challenge the idea that democracies should be able to weather all disagreements between people.
One overarching theme that I was thinking about in the readings for class today was control. Google, Facebook, and other big tech companies vie for control of their users in the face of criticism and legal action. Whether it be the ability to control which ads appear, the data collected, or the image they project, all of these companies want some form of control. A lot of what we read today was by no means surprising, but learning the lengths to which these companies provide a platform to those who can influence and control even the likes of what we buy, where we buy, elections, and social movements is incredible. In particular, I thought how interesting it was to learn about what cutting targeted ads would truly mean for these big tech companies.
Although a 4% drop in revenue is still equivalent to millions and millions of dollars, it is crazy to think how much more money is being invested by these companies in legal suits and congressional hearings to protect their ads. In my opinion, the greater thing at play of which they are trying to keep a hold of is control. Through targeted ads, these big tech companies can control and sway public opinions as well as collect critical usage data that they can use for their own products. In my opinion, it is no surprise that Amazon bought Whole Foods and created its own line of home products. Not only do these present no avenues for revenue, but they present new opportunities to acquire more data. Currently, we are in the midst of the war for data between the big tech companies that want it and the users/policies that want to protect it. In the US, one side is evidently winning.
These readings presents an intriguing perspective on the challenges modern democracies face due to the internet and information technologies, aptly termed as “Democracy’s Dilemma.” It’s compelling to see the double-edged sword of information accessibility, where the same technologies that democratize information can also be used to disseminate misinformation. It’s a sobering reminder that while we celebrate the digital age’s benefits, we must also address the threats it poses to democratic processes. I find the call for a “dynamical” model of democracy particularly striking, advocating for adaptability as a vital trait for democracies to remain resilient. The real-world examples of election integrity, public commenting processes, and the U.S. census illustrate the breadth of these challenges. It’s evident that defending democracy requires a shift from traditional methods to more comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches. The readings serves as a crucial reminder of the urgency of this issue – the risks of inaction could lead to weaker democracies and potential backsliding toward authoritarianism.
This article is quite intriguing! It raises some compelling points about the impact of targeted advertising on the internet. The idea of banning targeted ads as a solution to various internet-related issues, such as privacy concerns and the decline of journalism, is indeed radical but thought-provoking. It makes you question the role of data-driven advertising in our online lives and its effects on our privacy and the content we encounter.
The piece also sheds light on the privacy challenges and the controversial practice of sharing users’ data without their explicit consent. It’s fascinating to see how this issue is being tackled in Europe under GDPR, and how such legal complaints may influence global discussions around data protection.
While it’s clear that banning targeted ads wouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all solution, the article opens up an important dialogue about the impact of digital advertising on our online experiences and the need for more comprehensive privacy regulations. It’ll be interesting to see how this debate evolves and whether it gains momentum in the near future.