Data Discrimination Means the Poor May Experience a Different Internet
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
"[Kate Crawford] and a colleague propose a system of “due process” that would give people more legal rights to understand how data analytics are used in determinations made against them, such as denial of health insurance or a job."
The only reference to social status in the article comes at the end, citing situations where social media may be used to prioritize relief from natural disasters (if a particular neighborhood does not have this technology, there will be no data, even though there may be a larger need for assistance.)
Data science shouldn't be feared. It's just making more accurate predictions about things. Which is a good thing. And insurance companies for example have been doing this since forever. Not much has changed. I don't know if they've ever been required to explain to their customers how their statistics work, and if they were that's kind of ridiculous.
People fear discrimination. They imagine a bigot that arbitrarily hates some group of people and refuses to do business with them or employ them, even when it's in his own best interest. They don't imagine a completely unbiased computer algorithm weighing thousands of different pieces of information and spitting out very accurate predictions. That when it says it's 99% sure of something, it should be right nearly exactly 99% of the time.
For example, using tweets to deploy resources in a disaster. Yes it will make mistakes, but if it's more accurate on average than a human, then it will still save lives.
I mean, a lot of the web is driven by commerce and it makes no sense at all to try to sell them stuff that they can't afford.
The title seems to imply that Google will show the poor one SERP and the rich another. However, the article is actually about a proposal that, if you apply for something (e.g., insurance, a job, credit) and are denied, that you should have the right to an explanation of any role "big data" analytics may have played in the adverse decision.