1. You collect and annotate data (This is probably about 90% of the work here)
2. Someone has a goal of something to find or query
3. Develop models that can solve that goal, or redefine
4. Use the output
> Criminal justifce reform
The consequences from are a lot higher. We've seen this over 1000+ years about some of the conerning court cases. That's why we have ideas such as "spirit of the law," human judges, juries, and appeals. Additionally, this is why the law is so complicated and murky. Computers are very bad at this.
I'm especially hard on this individual because she's using her position with WaPO to try to publically "humiliate" those tech companies.
> Giving feedback
This is where some of the techincal literacy comes in a well, she doesn't seem to understand that the feedback requires human understanding is not something that is "intelligently" accounted for. Systems like that do not exist. The ad platform isn't something that is designed to accomidate her needs. (which is why I used the word entitled) It's a bit like being upset over those same ads being shown on TV. (media literacy covers, those are ads they may or may not be targeted towards you and those do not have to reflect your reality)
---
As far as the data privacy bit goes: We should have control over the data that is collected about us and have the ability to remove it later. At the moment the strongest thing we have is the GDPR, but that's for European Union citizens only.
Imagine your line of condescending argument being applied to someone complaining about being wrongly convicted and incarcerated, and who is calling for criminal justice reform. "You're entitled because you believe that your unusual/rare situation should be accounted for and encoded in the overall justice system"
edit: and the author even points out how she has done the manual work to give feedback to the algorithm:
> And when we millions of brokenhearted people helpfully click “I don’t want to see this ad,” and even answer your “Why?” with the cruel-but-true “It’s not relevant to me,” do you know what your algorithm decides, Tech Companies? It decides you’ve given birth, assumes a happy result, and deluges you with ads for the best nursing bras...
You read this, and yet still saw fit to berate the author for being "entitled". And then, one sentence later, go on to proclaim about how the "crux of the issue is: should we have control over the data and interactions we perform"? How does that work exactly?