Page 1 of 1

This is because non-neutrality trumps combination

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:56 am
by asimj1
However, I’d argue the combination argument and the non-neutrality principle are not that different. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the combination argument is actually a subset of the non-neutrality principle.


If I have a list of names, I may not spain rcs data know where those names came from, or if the order of those names matters. But I could still do something with this information.

I might have a theory that John is often a very common name and use this list of names to investigate this theory. I’m still combining something to treat this information as data, but I’m not combining information together. Instead, I’m combining a piece of information (the list of names) with an act of intention (my theory) to conceive of the information as data.

Another example: Facebook may well combine pieces of information together to produce data, but what pieces of information is a non-neutral choice Facebook makes; a decision which is based on Facebook’s commercial interests.

The combination argument is an elegant way of thinking about the production of data, but it does not in fact escape the non-neutrality principle.