Live blogging #Smalldata NYC
I’m at SmallData NYC, hosted by Mozilla. What I’m writing here is not a report on the event (which will be up on the Web for all to see, soon enough), but rather to put down my own #VRM-based riffs on what the panelists are saying. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the two. The purpose of an event like this is to get people thinking and talking. That’s what I’m doing here.
- New word for me: deconvolve. I like it, but gotta look it up.
- Actual and clear intent is more valuable than inferred intent.
- Whatever happened to AskJeeves-type search? Such as “I’m looking for Michael Jordan the AI expert, not the basketball player.”
- Thought: Why does search have to be so effing complicated.
- The Net has no business model. That’s why it supports an infinitude of business.
- At the moment a common (if not prevailing) business model on the Web is surveillance-based personalized advertising. This is not the same thing as the Web itself. If protecting your privacy, or “becoming an exile” from surveillance fails to support this business model, it does not break the model so much as provide feedback on what isn’t working — or what else might work better. And it certainly does not “break the Web.”
- “The Industry” is an interesting term. (One of the panelists “speaks for the industry.” I think here it means “commercial players on the Web.” In Hollywood it means Hollywood. I don’t think we’re even close to that level of metonymic maturity.
- “Small animal taxidermy is specifically an eBay problem.” I think I just heard that.
- I like “giving a user recommendations that are out of the cone of relevance.”
- Cone of Relevance is a good name for a band.
- Netflix recommendations are at least partly (or largely) about developing a long-term relationship with the company. Keeping subscribers. “If you know Netflix knows you, you’ll stay.”
- Battlestar Gallactica, by pure numbers, has high correlations with a children’s show for 3 year olds. Possibly because watchers of the show have little kids. “The math works,” but the manners don’t.
- On break, I’m with @Deanland, who sez, “All they seem to care about is how to glean information from people for the benefit of the sell side, with no discussion or apparent thinking about what the user wants, feels, means or cares about. The data is on a one-way street from buyer to seller, but only for the benefit of the seller, not the benefit of the buyer. Saying “It’s about serving them better” actually means “We can sell them better. There is also a sense that it is a given that The Machine, run by the seller, can get all this information, with no conscious involvement at all by the people yielding the information.” (Hoping Dean — and others — will bring this up after the break. We’ve only had presentations so far, not discussions yet.)
- Also: “Need a personal data silo. For the person, the #smalldata holder, not the Marketing Machine.”
- Wendy Davis of Mediapost (moderator) is challenging the belief that more information about individuals held by companies is better for individuals. (I think she’s saying.)
- I’m a person. I want my own damn personalization. Just saying.
- David Sontag, panelist, says usage data with Internet Explorer all goes to Microsoft.
- “People get much more upset with bad personalization than no personalization.” (Not sure I got that right.)
- Chris Maliwat: It’s hard to perceive a company’s intentionality.
- All these companies are in the train business. We’re passengers, whether we like it or not. Meanwhile, what we need are cars: instruments of independence, agency and personal utility — for ourselves, following our own intentions. I believe Mozilla is the only major browser that can fill this role, because it’s on our side and not on these companies’ side. The others are all instruments of their parent companies.
- A reason people don’t get more creeped out by all this surveillance and personalization, is that there have not yet been clear harms. Once that happens, the game changes.
- David Sontag: “I can ‘t get a credit card that won’t share my information with other companies.”
- Wendy: “How do researchers get users true intent?” (e.g. her gender may be irrelevant to her search, but they note her gender anyway)
- Chris: Personalization is not about perfection, but providing a range of choices.
- Wendy: “Do people actually know what they want?” My answer: yes. And the assumption that people mostly don’t know is a flaw in The System. So is the assumption that we are in the market to buy stuff all the time. If I want to know the height of Mt. Everest, that doesn’t mean I want to go there, or buy mountaineering gear, or anything commercial.
- Pat, from the audience, on intelligibility of recommendations: Pandora has filters that are domain aware… But lack of domain makes it harder to make recommendations intelligible.
- So far all of this is inside baseball. Except the game isn’t baseball. It’s building out the system in Minority Report. But instead of “pre-crime,” it’s all about what we might call “pre-sales.” It’s this scene here.
Currently 8:35pm, EDST.