Read on Twitter
Thread.
Bumped into this response on Phoronix.
Now most software developers will dismiss it as ignorant, but let's look a bit deeper at the lessons we can learn about #conspiracy thinking!
https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/1174349-facebook-posts-latest-memory-controller-patches-with-up-to-45-better-slab-utilization?p=1174664#post1174664
Bumped into this response on Phoronix.
Now most software developers will dismiss it as ignorant, but let's look a bit deeper at the lessons we can learn about #conspiracy thinking!
https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/general-linux-open-source/1174349-facebook-posts-latest-memory-controller-patches-with-up-to-45-better-slab-utilization?p=1174664#post1174664
You see, of course the writer is correct: Facebook might have an incentive to track users and putting code in the kernel that does that is a good way of doing that.
I know, again, a software dev will dismiss this for a number of reasons:
I know, again, a software dev will dismiss this for a number of reasons:
* It is in a different layer of the stack and not so easy to do
* The review process would catch it
* This isn't why Facebook contributes to the kernel
* The review process would catch it
* This isn't why Facebook contributes to the kernel
Now think about these arguments from the perspective of a lay person. Let's analyze them!
The first is obvious to a developer but meaningless for a laypersons. Without a pretty deep tech understanding, it is just techno babble. somebody else saying another thing is just as believable.
The second assumes you trust those 'experts' reviewing the code.
A dev usually does - we know these folks, perhaps follow them for years, know some personally. What they do is transparent to us - we can see their code.
But to a lay person, none of this is true!
A dev usually does - we know these folks, perhaps follow them for years, know some personally. What they do is transparent to us - we can see their code.
But to a lay person, none of this is true!
The third argument is perhaps the worst. It relies on knowledge about the benefits of open source. Most of us have experience explaining those to laypeople and seeing eyes glaze over - even most folks in tech still don't get open source.
So where are we?
So where are we?
Well, a layperson sees three arguments that 100% rely on believing experts. And they compete with the 'common sense' notion that Facebook has an incentive to put code in the kernel to track users.
Now imagine a javascript developer doing a Youtube video, explaining people how Facebook contributes to the kernel to get tracking code in Android and other devices.
YOU know a javascript dev has little credentials when it comes to the kernel. But to you, every biologist is a biologist, every medical expert a medical expert... Just like to a lay person, a developer is a developer.
Just like a 'random' dev could make such a video and probably create enough outrage to get Facebook banned from contributing to the kernel, a 'random' biologist can create a YouTube video that gets tens of thousands to believe Corona is a hoax.
It is a critical skill in our society: separate real experts from people who are not, even though you have no idea what they talk about.
An 'expert' on homeopathy sounds just as inscrutable as a physicist when they throw in terms from 'quantum mechanics'.
But the former is actually talking nonsense. The latter isn't.
But the former is actually talking nonsense. The latter isn't.
Experts in physics and biology will just shake their heads and IF they even are willing to argue, they use arguments a layperson will value... as little as they do the expert arguments a techie will use to explain that Facebook can't track users by getting code in the kernel.
So how do we get around this?
There is actually a mechanism, because there are people who CAN judge who is an expert: other experts!
There is actually a mechanism, because there are people who CAN judge who is an expert: other experts!
So when you want to know if Facebook can track you using the kernel SLAB allocator, check if other kernel developers are debating the issue.
For a layperson, 'expert consensus' is the most certain way to judge an issue they don't understand.
For a layperson, 'expert consensus' is the most certain way to judge an issue they don't understand.
I know it is probably not satisfying and the YouTube arguments of conspiracy theorists about global conspiracies to surpress knowledge about flat earths, fake moon landings and miracle cures sound better... But realize YOUR judgement, as layperson, is not valuable.
You can only rely on the opinions of other experts. There will always be a javascript developer who made a YouTube video about SLAB allocators and Facebook - there will always be an 'expert' who goes against the rest.
It just makes them wrong.
It just makes them wrong.
And no. Just like not even Facebook could buy off enough kernel developers to get code in that tracks users, the CDC isn't "bought" to promote a fake disease or surpress certain medicine
They have their issues. So does the kernel! I'm sure there are genuine disagreements and issues with Facebook's SLAB code. Issues that techies consider a big deal. But nothing as outlandish and actually user-facing as user tracking using the memory layer...
Just like there are absolutely some real issues with vaccines. But nothing as outlandish as them causing autism or other things.
So if you want to be as close to the truth as a layperson can get, trust the expert consensus. It's all we have.
So if you want to be as close to the truth as a layperson can get, trust the expert consensus. It's all we have.
