On Wednesday 16 December 2009 11:36:37 Matt Wardman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Leigh Caldwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Should we correct this distortion by taxing data analysis? > > Probably not :-), but don't tell Gordon. > > Data itself already gets 'taxed' by charging for access (e.g., full census > details). > > I was thinking about a world where there may be dozens of different > analyses purporting to prove different things, and how we will navigate > through and make sense of it. > > M.
Making data available to the public that previously wasn't available at all will obviously advantage those with the ability to analyse it more than those without (at least to the extent that the first group don't create tools to let the second group use it). However, this inequality exists at a higher background level of public good than before. This is essentially the Harrison Bergeron argument - it's better for the public to remain ignorant, because they are then equally ignorant. Of course, the subtext here (and possibly the real purpose of the argument) is that the inequality between the authorities who have the information and everyone else remains in place; the churchmen who didn't want the ordinary people to be able to read the bible in English no doubt rationalised that they were better off that way, and only the heretics and troublemakers would bother reading it anyway and only the sharp elbowed middle class would benefit yadda yadda. But the effect of their rationalisin' was to keep the books locked up. sings: "Libraries gave us power..."
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
