Arvind Narayanan puzzled over this fact: Online price discrimination is suspiciously absent in directly observable form, even though covert price discrimination is everywhere. … The differential treatment isn’t made explicit — e.g., by not basing it directly on a customer attribute — and thereby avoiding triggering the perception of unfairness or discrimination. (
Articles with informative content like yours are a breath of fresh air. I thoroughly enjoyed every thought you made in your material. I am with you on your original views and unique content. Thank you.
Even consistent changes in fairness attitudes may only reflect consistent changes in the outcomes that winning coalitions of hypocrites prefer. It is odd to point to consistent changes over time as showing a constant over time truth about fairness.
Internet is a totally different world than physical institutions, although US scientists couldn't admit such lack of knowledge about a medium they created and seem to be pushing in certain directions. What different cultures make of letters pushed at the speed of light to their monitors could be at best approximated by random lying.
This is why moralistic arguments are so ineffective and why moralistic zeal is so strongly related to signaling. (And it's why Robin needs to renounce moral realism.)
But I think Robin overstates the opportunism of "morality" because he sees the alternatives as hard-wired precepts versus opportunistic moralizing. (This is, incidentally, the Jack London ["The Iron Heel"] version of the Marxist explanation of "bourgeois morality." He wrote man is a rationalizing animal and will always morally justify his class's oppressive acts.)
But there's another source: people's amoral habits of life that indirectly structure how they think about morality. ( http://tinyurl.com/7t3zrrl )
Articles with informative content like yours are a breath of fresh air. I thoroughly enjoyed every thought you made in your material. I am with you on your original views and unique content. Thank you.
Even consistent changes in fairness attitudes may only reflect consistent changes in the outcomes that winning coalitions of hypocrites prefer. It is odd to point to consistent changes over time as showing a constant over time truth about fairness.
Attitudes change, but not always in a very consistant direction.
When the Industrial Revolution was young, people used to say it was great that this would allow the wives and children of the poor to find work.
Then they said it was terrible that all those women and children were working in factories and mines, and it ought to be banned.
Now they say it was terrible that they banned all those women from working in mines and factories and it ought to be allowed, if not encouraged.
I wonder what they will say tomorrow.
If moral arguments are ineffective, why have the last 100 years seen major changes in attitudes to race, war, empire, gender and sexuality?
Internet is a totally different world than physical institutions, although US scientists couldn't admit such lack of knowledge about a medium they created and seem to be pushing in certain directions. What different cultures make of letters pushed at the speed of light to their monitors could be at best approximated by random lying.
This is why moralistic arguments are so ineffective and why moralistic zeal is so strongly related to signaling. (And it's why Robin needs to renounce moral realism.)
But I think Robin overstates the opportunism of "morality" because he sees the alternatives as hard-wired precepts versus opportunistic moralizing. (This is, incidentally, the Jack London ["The Iron Heel"] version of the Marxist explanation of "bourgeois morality." He wrote man is a rationalizing animal and will always morally justify his class's oppressive acts.)
But there's another source: people's amoral habits of life that indirectly structure how they think about morality. ( http://tinyurl.com/7t3zrrl )