4 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2021
  2. Oct 2020
    1. For example, the idea of “data ownership” is often championed as a solution. But what is the point of owning data that should not exist in the first place? All that does is further institutionalise and legitimate data capture. It’s like negotiating how many hours a day a seven-year-old should be allowed to work, rather than contesting the fundamental legitimacy of child labour. Data ownership also fails to reckon with the realities of behavioural surplus. Surveillance capitalists extract predictive value from the exclamation points in your post, not merely the content of what you write, or from how you walk and not merely where you walk. Users might get “ownership” of the data that they give to surveillance capitalists in the first place, but they will not get ownership of the surplus or the predictions gleaned from it – not without new legal concepts built on an understanding of these operations.
  3. Jul 2020
  4. Mar 2019
    1. protect the chi!-· dren

      I know we would like to think of the exploitation of child labor as some relic of Dickensian fiction, but the bosses still find ways to exploit. I've had many students over the years who worked jobs under management that forced them to work long hours, always at the expense of school work, etc. The policies today seem more concerned with immigration status than academic success. [https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/minimum-wage/new-laws-and-regulations-for-2019/]