Randomly, no matter if a Facebook user is Democratic or Republican, a user would see an Ad for the opposite candidate they are voting for. The New York Times decided to conduct some research to understand why this is happening. One thing about these Ads is that they are intentional micro-targeted online advertisements to a certain demographic. They had come to conclude some possibilities on why these ads appear is because they have your email address that is linked to your Facebook account. Facebook could potentially be monitoring user's online activity and targeting a certain Ad to you based on your likes and dislikes. Facebook could also be targeting a user based on their political beliefs by comparing it to other users, so someone could be conservative, moderate, or liberal, and will target a certain Ad to a user based on that information. They say they could be viewing your browsing history to see who have you been looking at politically or their targeting users based on age or ethnicity.
This article is credible enough because Jeremy B. Merrill is a journalist and developer for the New York Times, a popular and credible online journaling industry. I chose this article because everyone uses Facebook to connect with family and friends. What Facebook is allowing and always been allowing third party companies monitor our activity and target us based on what we have searched. This is an ongoing invasion of our privacy that shouldn't be happening. In my opinion, last years election was with a big issue on online privacy and advertising a candidate is inevitable, but it still goes through our privacy and comes off as a personal insult. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/us/politics/facebook-ads-campaign.html?ref=technology
2 Comments
A magazine company named Consumer Reports, asked Tesla to disable the autopilot feature after a driver was killed using autopilot. Tesla then replied to Consumer Reports explaining “The driver is still responsible for, and ultimately in control of, the car ... ” whether or not they are using autopilot. Consumer Reports claims autopilot, one of Tesla’s selling points, should require the driver to keep their hands on the wheel while it is still in autopilot because its giving consumers a false sense of security. Although Tesla appreciates the advice Consumer Reports is giving them about their electric vehicles, they would be willing to make decisions based on “real–world date, not speculation by the media.”
The Guardian is a credible source to come by because it has been around since 1821 and has been recognized for it’s amazing journalism (About the Guardian). The reason why I picked this article was because we're getting close to these eco–friendly, technology based vehicles and we shouldn’t be scared by it. Another reason why I chose this article was because of Tesla’s safety issues. Is it ethically right to call a feature “autopilot” it doesn’t function on its own? No, it isn’t ethically right because Tesla is marketing that feature as one of their selling points and it’s putting consumers at risk. It is a safety and sustainability issue that Tesla has on their hands and they are not dealing with the issue. Of course, I do agree that a magazine company cannot change the mind of Tesla, the biggest electric car company, but Tesla can start thinking about it. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/14/consumer-reports-tesla-autopilot-death IBM's AI, Watson, was put in gameshows, such as Jeopardy!, for two years. IBM thought it was a great idea to put Watson in Medical School to help diagnose human disease. Watson has the ability to store medical information and help assist those Doctors who don't have the capacity to remember everything Doctors learn in medical school. IBM's AI has the capacity to suggest these diagnosis faster and more accurately than a typical Doctor. The only downfall to having computers, like Watson, having every patients medical records is a threat to the patients privacy due to hackers.
Driverless vehicles are becoming a apart of society as well. Alan Winfield, a professor of electrical engineering at UWE Bristol, explains that the only problem with the drivers cars is the insurance and legislation. Whose fault is it when the car crashes, the person who owns the car or the company who produces it? The bonus about driverless cars, is that they would know how fast to drive, the layout of the road, and would be aware of other vehicles on the road so there would be less crashes happening. I believe this article is pretty credible because the author, Nicola Davis, is a writer for the Guardian in the science and technology department. She has her masters in Chemistry and her Doctorate in Philosophy, and has worked for the Observer as a commissioning editor in the Tech Monthly. I choose this article because we are coming closer to all of this advanced technology and we need to be aware of the issues that will arise from all of it, especially since it will impact everyones way of life. If we have computers reporting what our diagnosis is just by analyzing, and they're more accurate and faster than doctors, we can help find the cure for peoples diseases faster. The only thing is we need to hire hackers to protect these AI from being breached, it's an invasion of our privacy. The same concern goes for driverless vehicles, they can be hacked and tampered with. There are plus sides to having this kind of advanced technology, such as less accidents on the road and less traffic. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/20/artificial-intelligence-impact-lives |