Post AYcfFItOXKwndTb7zM by evemassacre@assemblag.es
(DIR) More posts by evemassacre@assemblag.es
(DIR) Post #AYcSdTsK3XHVFBIK4u by malteengeler@legal.social
2023-08-11T11:13:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Should we be entitled to payment for the data we provide to commercial platforms?Some within the left are asking for such a "fair share". I however find myself opposed. While this would certainly make it more visible that personal data is (and has been for some time) subjected to economic exploitation it would only solidify and legitimize this submission to market dynamics.(1/2)
(DIR) Post #AYcTfdYL94xHnAXXDU by computersandblues@post.lurk.org
2023-08-11T11:25:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler i agree. i also don't see how that would work out economically. individual pieces of data are worth mere pennies; it only becomes valuable in bulk
(DIR) Post #AYcTgx3g6t9SZopCoC by malteengeler@legal.social
2023-08-11T11:25:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
What I find fascinating are the parallels to the debate about whether emancipation of reproductive work of women would be aided by demanding pay for household work. I've been reading Federici and Dalla Costa recently and am most inspired by their clear understanding about this issue. What stuck with me is a quote from Dalla Costa who wrote that this question marks the dividing line between reform and revolutionary politics.
(DIR) Post #AYcZuGF0hRdrYor4b2 by emma@assemblag.es
2023-08-11T12:35:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler another problem is that we don't consist of or comprise data. "Personal data" is at least as much the product of the exogenous systems that construct it as it is "ours." The idea of paying individuals for "their" data reinforces the idea that there's some kind of natural continuum between us and data, which is very convenient for digital capitalism.
(DIR) Post #AYcbGuys0kayEmfngO by malteengeler@legal.social
2023-08-11T12:50:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emma I feel like I agree. However: We do not consist of "work" either. Is that a problem for you?I'd say "work" is simultaneously a category that helps making exploitation of human bodys and lifetime visible while - in practice - obviously serving capitalist interests.I'd suggest that there is merit in seeing the sum of all data about one person as something like their "digital body". This way we could draw similarities between exploiting physical and digital bodys.
(DIR) Post #AYcctN5y1wqCOJtPPM by evemassacre@assemblag.es
2023-08-11T13:08:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler @emma Not a body, a "companion species" at best (Deborah Lupton). ;)https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951715619947
(DIR) Post #AYcdP5zx8FmqdHCsca by malteengeler@legal.social
2023-08-11T13:14:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@evemassacre @emma thank you. I'll read it! A quick response: The name is irrelevant (body or companion) as long as it helps to better understand and discuss the material reality of commodification of data.
(DIR) Post #AYcfFItOXKwndTb7zM by evemassacre@assemblag.es
2023-08-11T13:35:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler @emma I'm not sure I'm happy with the metaphor of the physical body as it's seen as insular and finite. Data is contextual and unlimited and replicable etc. As for exploitation wouldn't it be more fruitful to think it in the direction of the debate about intellectual property? A concept that IMHO was a mistake and has never quite worked and has done as much bad as good by commodification of something so abstract. Maybe the worst thing since starting the idea of landownership.
(DIR) Post #AYcgZXngv17bcN94W8 by emma@assemblag.es
2023-08-11T13:50:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler This is an interesting question. It implicates the mind/body problem. I think for the practical purpose of functioning normally in modern life, we need to see the self as manifest—ie, as a "thing" (body, companion, etc.), that is datafiable at least to some extent, even beyond capital's mechanisms of capture. And that view is useful for understanding the object of exploitation... [1/n] (your post made me think a lot)...
(DIR) Post #AYciI7kIjglfnQNfea by emma@assemblag.es
2023-08-11T13:52:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler The process of digitization under data-driven neoliberal capitalism simultaneously breaks down and reinforces divisions between the self and everything beyond it. Its premise is that everything is digitizable, which implies a radical unity—to the point of indistinction—between the immaterial and material. For that reason, I see the wisdom in identifying one's "data body" as a unique type of thing that can be exploited...[2/n]
(DIR) Post #AYciI8hVBa7gl24wvg by emma@assemblag.es
2023-08-11T13:54:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler ... in other words, if we disambiguate the data body from other kinds of "bodies" we identify with, we might better understand specific ways in which digital capitalism exploits us.But, at the same time, digital capitalism functions by distinguishing people from each other, especially through identity categories. It suggests that the world only has one type of "natural" feature, which is the categories it uses to sort and separate people. [3/n]
(DIR) Post #AYciI9SINbYN69yJrk by emma@assemblag.es
2023-08-11T13:57:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@malteengeler E.g., a typical demographic category (gender, race, etc.), or a "consumer interested in this product" type of category, or another effective labeling tool. I'm concerned that if we identify a "data body" that has an existence independent of these mechanisms, we risk reifying these labels. TL;DR it's complicated.btw, a lot of these thoughts are inspired by Matteo Pasquinelli's work on operaismo, Franco Berardi (The Soul at Work), and Eugene Thacker (The Global Genome).[4/4]
(DIR) Post #AYciIAI3HAxBggBeXQ by malteengeler@legal.social
2023-08-11T14:09:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emma The risk (you are describing) of identifying the data body separately from the individual seems very familiar (again) when I look at what Marx wrote about the alienation between work and person under capitalism.